TECHNOCRACYRISINGTheTrojanHorseofGlobalTransformation

byPatrickM.WoodThedarkhorseofthe

NewWorldOrderisnotCommunism,SocialismorFascism.ItisTechnocracy.

DEDICATION

Thisbookisdedicatedtomytwodaughters,DebraandJennifer,andmytwosons, JoshuaandBenjamin, and their children,whomayhave to livewith theconsequences of the Brave New World of Technocracy, should this presentgenerationfailtorejectit.

I

PREFACE

ThedarkhorseoftheNewWorldOrderisnotCommunism,SocialismorFascism:ItisTechnocracy.1

don’tknowanyonewhofollowsthenewswhodoesn’tsaythattheworldseemstobecrumblingbeforehiseyes.TheAmericandynastyhasseemingly

hit a brick wall in every conceivable direction. Wealth is shrinking, recordnumbersareonwelfare,ourpoliticalstructuresaredysfunctional,regulationsaresuffocating the economy, personal privacy has been shattered, foreign policydisastersareeverywhere,racialconflictisthehighestindecadesandonandon.Don’t think that these changes aremerely some strange twist of fate or that

theyaresomehowallunrelated.Theyarenot!In fact, the world is being actively transformed according to a very narrow

economical/political/social philosophy called Technocracy, and it is impactingevery segment of society in every corner of the world. Furthermore,TechnocracyisbeingsponsoredandorchestratedbyaglobaleliteledbyDavidRockefeller’s and Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Trilateral Commission. Let theevidence speak for itself. [Note: Trilateral Commissionmember names are inboldtype.]Originally started in the early 1930s, Technocracy is antithetical to every

American institution thatmadeus into thegreatestnationonearth. It eschewsproperty rights, obsoletes capitalism, hates politicians and traditional politicalstructures,andpromisesaloftyutopiandreammadepossibleonly ifengineers,scientists and technicians are allowed to run society. When Aldous Huxleypenned Brave New World in 1932, he accurately foresaw this wrenchingtransformationof societyandpredicted that theendof itwouldbea scientificdictatorshipunlikeanythingtheworldhaseverseen.Indeed,Technocracyistransformingeconomics,government,religionandlaw.

Itrulesbyregulation,notbyRuleofLaw,policiesaredreamedupbyunelectedand unaccountable technocrats buried in government agencies, and regionalgovernance structures are replacing sovereign entities like cities, counties andstates.Thisispreciselywhyoursocietyseemssodislocatedandirreparable.Still say you’ve never heard of Technocracy?Well, you probably have but

underdifferentnames.The tentaclesofTechnocracy includeprogramssuchasSustainable Development, Green Economy, GlobalWarming/Climate Change,Cap and Trade, Agenda 21, Common Core State Standards, Conservation

Easements,Public-PrivatePartnerships,SmartGrowth,LandUse,energySmartGrid, de-urbanization and de-population. In America, the power grab ofTechnocracyisseeninthecastratingoftheLegislativeBranchbytheExecutiveBranch, replacing lawsand lawmakerswithReflexiveLawandregulators,andestablishing regional Councils of Governments in every state to usurpsovereigntyfromcities,countiesandstates.TechnocracyRising:TheTrojanHorseofGlobalTransformationconnectsthe

dotsinwaysyouhaveneverseenbefore,takingyouonahistoricaljourneythatleads right up to the current day. Itwill show you how this coup de grâce istakingplacerightunderournosesandwhatwemightdotostopit.When Americans saw through Technocracy in the 1930s, they forcefully

rejected itand thepeoplewhopromoted it. IfAmericansareable to recognizethismodern-dayTrojanhorse,theycanrejectitagain.Indeed,theymust!

PatrickM.WoodAuthor

1PatrickM.Wood,“Technocracy’sEndgame:GlobalSmartGrid”,AugustForecast&Review,2011.

TACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

hisbookwouldnotexistwithouttheencouragementandknowledgeofanumberofpeople.SpecialthanksisgiventoDr.MartinErdmannforhis

patientinstructionanddiverseknowledgeonthesetopics;toCarlTeichrib,whoco-labored with me in much of the early research needed for this book; toMichael Shaw for his detailed and knowledgeable input on Agenda 21 andSustainableDevelopment;totheUniversityofAlberta(Canada)forgenerouslygranting access to me to study their extremely valuable historical libraryarchivesonTechnocracy,Inc.Specialthanksisalsogiventothosewhoactuallyturned this into a book: to my loving wife, Charmagne, who encouraged meevery step of the way and whose sharp eye turned up literally hundreds ofediting issues; to Gail Hardaway, whose teaching career in English greatlyhelpedintheeditingandproofingprocess;toSpencerFettigforheryouthfulandcriticalproof-readingskillsandsuggestionsthatdefinitelybroughtmoreclarityto many passages; and to all my friends at RevelationGate Ministries whoencouragedanddonatedtothisproject.Aboveall,IgivecreditandthankstotheGodoftheuniversewhoputthisinformationinfrontofmeandthenopenedmyeyestounderstandwhatIwasactuallylookingat,withoutwhichIwouldmostcertainlystillbewanderingthehallsofintellectualignorance.

FOREWORD

Thatwhichhasbeeniswhatwillbe,Thatwhichisdoneiswhatwillbedone,Andthereisnothingnewunderthesun.Isthereanythingofwhichitmaybesaid,“See,thisisnew?”IthasalreadybeeninAncienttimesbeforeus.(Ecclesiastes1:9-10)

ModernTechnocracyandTranshumanismarebothproductsofthenotionthatscience and technology can somehow fulfill the utopian dream of perfectingsociety in general and humanness in particular. Furthermore, the rapidadvancement of science and technology is leading its practitioners to believemorestronglythaneverthatfinalandtotaldeliverancefromtheirunenlightenedpastisbutahairsbreadthaway.Theyseewarsbeingeliminated,povertybeingeradicatedandsocietylivinginperfectharmonythankstotheircarefulscientificmanagement. However, as you shall see, the desire to reform society andhumanity is hardly new but is deeply rooted in both history and in religioussubstitution;inhistory,becausetherearemanyexamplesofaneliteusingtheircontrol over some form of technology to subjugate others; in religioussubstitution,becausetraditionalfaithinGodasthesoleproviderofredemptionandtranscendencehasbeenreplacedbyarelianceonscienceandtechnologytoprovidethesamebenefits.The religious foundations for technological advancement have been either

ignoredorhiddenaway from theviewofmostWesternersduringmostof thepasttwocenturies.Aslongasmodernity’sPositivism–theprincipalphilosophyofwhatwouldlaterundergirdthetechnocraticworldview–heldswayovertheminds of its adherents, the conscious recognition of a reality other than whatnaturalismofferedcouldbedenied.Postmodernity’srecognitionofthefutilitytowilfully suppress the knowledge of technology’s religious aspects has notnecessarilygeneratedamorerealisticviewof itsadvantagesand limitations inthe world of physical reality. Quite the contrary, the present-day acolytes oftechnologywho serve in the corporate and academic temples of research anddevelopment are even more committed than their forbearers to achieve theimpossible:perfectionineachandeveryaspectofhumanexistence.Theidealsof Utopia have never been more widely hailed as the foundation stones ofmodern living than by the proponents of a communitarian and technocratic

worldsociety.It should be noted thatwhile the lure of technology appeals to thewould-be

captainsofglobalhegemony,italsoappealstothelowestechelonsofhumanityas well. For instance, the philosopher Michael Heim wrote once, “Ourfascinationwithcomputers...ismoredeeplyspiritualthanutilitarian.Whenon-line,webreakfreefrombodilyexistence.”Wethenemulatethe“perspectiveofGod”,anall-at-onenessof“divineknowledge”.Onceagain,technologyisbeingpromotedasameanstotranscendenceandredemption.Forsome,thisisanon-traditional religious transcendence of the body andmaterial limitations in theephemeral, ineffable realmknownas “cyberspace”.Forothers, it is a spiritualquest to transcend our limitations and reacquire personal divinity.On a largerscale, the developers of nuclear weapons, space exploration and artificialintelligence, for instance, may be propelled by religious desires, but they aresustained bymilitary financing and the results of their labours are totalitariangovernmentsruledbyaneliteoftechnocrats.Thereaderisurgedtomakecarefulstudyofthisbookanditsprimarymessage,

thatinthenameofscienceandscientism,technocracyisontheriseworld-wide,that it is an age-old deception of the greatestmagnitude, that it is notwhat itappearstobeandthatitcannotmakegooddeliveryonitsfantasticalpromises.Dr.MartinErdmann,Director

VeraxInstitut

COPYRIGHT©2015BYPATRICKM.WOODALLRIGHTSRESERVED.THISBOOKORANYPORTIONTHEREOFMAYNOTBEREPRODUCEDORUSEDINANYMANNERWHATSOEVERWITHOUTTHEEXPRESSWRITTENPERMISSIONOFTHE

PUBLISHEREXCEPTFORTHEUSEOFBRIEFQUOTATIONSINABOOKREVIEW.

PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmericaFirstPrinting,2015ISBN978-0-9863739-1-6

CoherentPublishingP.O.Box21269Mesa,AZ85277

www.CoherentPress.comAdditionalInformation&Updateswww.TechnocracyRising.com

TABLEOFCONTENTSDedicationvTableofContentsviiAcknowledgementsixForewordxiPrefacexiiiIntroduction1Chapter111TheBackdropforTechnocracyChapter219FromPassiontoMeltdown(1920-1940)Chapter345TheTrilateralCommissionChapter477TransformingEconomicsChapter599TransformingGovernmentChapter6115TransformingReligionChapter7129TransformingLawChapter8141TransformingEnergy:GlobalSmartGridChapter9165TheTotalSurveillanceSocietyChapter10179TransformingHumanityChapter11189TakingActionChapter12201ConclusionAppendixI209

TransformingChristianityAppendixII2231979InterviewwithGeorgeS.FranklinAppendixIII245TheEarthCharterBibliography255Index267

L

INTRODUCTIONTechnocracy is the scienceof socialengineering, the scientificoperationof the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods andservicestotheentirepopulation…2

etmebeclearabout the intentandscopeof thisbook.Mypremise isthat when it was founded in 1973, the Trilateral Commission quietly

adopted a modified version of historic Technocracy to craft what it called a“NewInternationalEconomicOrder”.Thishasbeenlargelyunrecognizedeventothisday.Withthecombinedweightofthemostpowerfulglobalelitebehindit,Technocracyhasflourishedinthemodernworldandhasperhapsreachedthetipping point of no return. This book will explain Technocracy in detail,demonstratethemethodologythathasbeenusedtoimplementit,documentthecontroloverpowercenters thatallowed themethodology tobeused,andmostimportantly,exposetheperpetratorswhoareresponsibleforit.Ifthereaderdoesnot see the importance of these connections, then neither will he see theeconomic and political dangers in such things like Sustainable Development,Agenda21,Public-PrivatePartnerships,SmartGrowth,GreenEconomy,SmartGrid, Common Core State Standards, Councils of Governments, etc. Thecreation of all of these programs will be laid at the feet of the TrilateralCommission, in the name of Technocracy. Indeed, the Trilateral Commissionand its members were simultaneously the philosophical creators of modernTechnocracy as well as the implementers as they occupied key positions ingovernments,businessandacademiasince1973.I can already hear the Trilaterals and Technocrats howling in protest after

readingjustthisfirstparagraph.“Notso!”,“Foolishness!”,“Lunacy!”I’veheardthislamedefenseforalmost40years.Oneofthefirstlessonslearnedaboutliarsinmyearlydays,whentheColdWarwasinfullplay-andtheSovietswerealsoconsummateliars-wasto“Watchwhattheydo,notwhattheysay.”So,toallyouelitistswhomightperchancebereadingthisbook,youstandnakedbeforetheevidence.To the restof the inquiringworld,youmaynot likewhatyoudiscoverhere,

butifyoufollowalongtotheend,youwillseeallthedotsfinallyconnectedinawaythatmakesperfectsense.The term technocracy was first used publicly byW.H. Smythe in his 1919

article, “Industrial Management”. During that time in history, academics andprofessionals were fervently debating various aspects of the industrial and

technologicalrevolutionsandtheirimpactonsociety,economyandgovernmentstructures.TheworditselfisderivedfromtheGreekwords“techne”,meaningskilledand

“kratos”,meaning rule. Thus, it is government by skilled engineers, scientistsand technicians as opposed to elected officials. Technocracy was generallyconsidered to be exclusive of all other forms of government, includingdemocracy,communism,socialismand fascism,butasweshall see, therewassomeideologicalblendingofideaswhenitsuitedthepersonorgroupdoingthetalking.In any case, whenever you hear the word Technocracy, this minimum

definition will always apply. As the movement progressed and ideas wereexpanded, some of those additional ideas were branded backward into theoriginal definition as modifying clauses, but they only added to the originalmeaningwithoutnecessarilychangingit.My interest inglobalismand theactivitiesof theglobal elite started in1976

whenIwasayoungfinancialwriterandsecuritiesanalyst.IlaterteamedupwithAntonyC.SuttontostudyandwriteabouttheTrilateralCommission,itspoliciesandmembers, and their plans for global hegemony. Sutton taughtme how to“Follow themoney.Follow thepower.”whichhasproven tobean invaluableaidingettingtotheheartofamatter.AlthoughIwouldliketowriteafollow-upbook to our Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II, the subject ofTechnocracynowtrumpsallothers.Ifthereisaholygrail(or,unholygrail)ofunderstandingontheNewWorldOrder,thisisit.Inanutshell,historicTechnocracyisautopianeconomicsystemthatdiscards

price-based economics in favor of energy or resource-based economics.Technocracyissoradicallydifferentfromallcurrenteconomicnormsthatitwillstretchyourmindtogetagraspofwhatitactuallymeansandwhatitimpliesforaglobalsociety.However, in order to properly integrateTechnocracy into the total picture, I

willbrieflyaddresssomeotherimportantandrelatedtopicsalongtheway,suchas Scientism, Transhumanism and Scientific Dictatorship. That these are notdealt with in full at present is not to diminish their importance in any way;perhapsfollow-upworkswillallowforamoredetailedandcompletetreatmentofthosetopics.Inthe1930s,therewasapopularmovementcalledTechnocracythatspawned

a large and zealous following of hundreds of thousands of members in theUnited States and Canada. Sadly, history books reveal little about this

movement, and so my study of it required a significant amount of time-consuming original research at significant personal expense. As I dug deeplyintohistoricalarchivesandoldmedia,IwasincreasinglyshockedbytheimpactthatTechnocracyhadthenandishavingontheworldtoday.Therehavebeenmanysmallcrackpotmovementsthroughouthistorytowhich

wemightsay,“Whocares?”WhenahundredpeoplegettogethertotalkaboutUFOs, utopian philosophy or whatever, it’s just a hundred people gettingtogether.Ifnothingcomesofit,allthefolkseventuallypassandhistoryforgetsthattheywereeveralive.ThisisnotsowithTechnocracyformanyreasons:

Bythe1930stherewasatleasta100yearbackdropofphilosophicaljustificationforScientismandTechnocracy.The organizers were top tier engineers and scientists of their day,many of whom were professors at prestigious universities such asColumbiaUniversity.Their plans were meticulously detailed, documented and openlypublished.The impact of their policies and philosophy on the modern globalsocietyisgargantuan.

Technocracy is about economic and social control of society and personsaccording to the Scientific Method. Most of us think about the so-calledscientificmethodwhenwe think back on the carefully crafted experiments inhighschoolchemistryorbiologyclass.ThatisnotwhatI’mtalkingabouthere.Technocracy’s Scientific Method dates back mostly to philosophers Henri deSaint-Simon(1760-1825)andAugusteComte(1798-1857).Accordingtotheglobal-mindedNewSchool,Henri de Saint-Simon is renowned as the founder of the “Saint-Simonian”movement, a type of semi-mystical “Christian-Scientific” socialism thatpervaded the 19th Century. Saint-Simon envisaged the reorganization ofsociety with an elite of philosophers, engineers and scientists leading apeaceful process of industrialization tamed by their “rational” Christian-Humanism. His advocacy of a “New Christianity” -- a secular humanistreligiontoreplacethedefuncttraditionalreligions--wastohavescientistsaspriests.Thispriestlytaskwasactuallytakenupbytwoofhisfollowers--Barthelemy-ProsperEnfantin (1796-1864)andSaint-AmandBazard (1791-1832)--whoinfectedthewholemovementwiththeirbizarremysticismand

ritual.3

Saint-Simon, along with Comte, is considered a father of so-called “socialscience”studiesinuniversitiesworld-wide.Hewasthefirstphilosophertobringpsychology, physiology, physics, politics and economics to the study ofhumanityandhumanbehaviorandthefirsttosuggestthattheScientificMethodcould be used in the process to discoverwhatmademan and society tick.Assuch, he hadno regard forwhat “little people” thought andhighest regard forthose enlightened ones of superior intellectual abilities. Human nature wasmerelyanobjectofdispassionateresearchandobjectiveanalysis.4

AugusteComtewasthefounderofthedisciplineofSociologyandthedoctrineofPositivism,andmanyregardhimasthefirstphilosopherofscience.Hewasheavily influenced by Saint-Simon. Comte promoted the notion that the onlyauthenticknowledgeisscientificknowledgeandthattheScientificMethodwastheonlywaytoarriveatsuchtruth.IfyouwanttolearnmoreaboutSaint-Simon,Comteandtheirfollowers,there

areamultitudeofgoodresourcesinyourpublicoruniversitylibraryandontheInternet. The point of invoking their names here is to point out thatTechnocracy’selitewayofthinkinghadbeenbrewingforalongtimeandwashardly original with modern technocrats. However, since science was rapidlyadvancing during the 1920s and 1930s (and the Great Depression falselyconvincedmany that capitalism and free enterprise were dead), they believedthat they alone possessed the knowledge to make a scientific society operatesuccessfully and efficiently. Further, bolstered by the supposed death ofcapitalismduring theGreatDepression, they figured that their shiphad finallycome in, and it was time for them to take over, restructure society alongscientificlines,andtherebysavetheworld:nomoredepressions,nomorewar,nomorepoverty.YouwillsoonlearneverythingaboutTechnocracythatyouwishyoudidnot

know,andyetthereisonemoreimportantpointthatyouneedtounderstandtoputitallincontext.InorderforTechnocracytosucceed,itisnecessarytohaveinplaceacomprehensivesystemfortheorderlymanagementofallhumansandallfacetsofsocietaloperation.Thisincludestheeconomic,political,socialandreligious.Furthermore,theseareasmustnotbemerelycompatible;theymustbesothoroughlyentangledwitheachotherthatdistinctionsamongthemwillnotbeobvious to their subjects. Indeed, this is the “holistic” approach to globalgovernance.[Note:Governanceisaprocessofregulatorymanagementanddoesnot refer to representative government, as it is commonly understood. The

regulatorsareunelected“experts”whoanswertonoone,asisthecasewiththeEuropeanUnion,forinstance.]This is an important point to grasp because it permeates the thinking of all

historicalandmodernTechnocratsalike.Itis,sotospeak,the“gluethatbinds”these concepts together, rendering them inseparable, interdependent andsymbiotic. Unfortunately, in order for you to really get into the Technocrat’smind,Imustdigressintoonemorephilosophicaldiscussion,butIpromiseitwillbeshort!The Greek word for whole is “holos”, from which we have a number of

modern words such as holistic, holism, holon, holarchy and so on. Thephilosophicalconceptsthathavegrownuparoundthesewordshaveasmuchtodowithmetaphysicsandreligionastheydowithpoliticsoreconomics.In 1926, Jan Christian Smuts (1870-1950) wrote a political treatise called

HolismandEvolution.WhowasSmuts?Asa statesman,militarycommander,politician and philosopher, Smuts advocated the founding of the League ofNations and later was a leading figure in the creation of the United NationsCovenant.In1917,hewaschosentobeamemberoftheImperialWarCabinetinEngland,duringwhich timehehelped to found theRoyalAirForce. Inhisnative South Africa, Smuts was twice elected Prime Minister after holdingseverallesserelectedpositions.InHolismandEvolution, Smuts proposed the “Theoryof theWhole”which

states, inpart, that“whata thing is in itssumisofgreater importance than itscomponentparts.”5Thus,thecityismoreimportantthanitsinhabitants,thestateismore important than itscities,and thewholeofhumanity ismore importantthan cities, nation-states and all the humans therein. The individual is seenrelinquishing his or her rights, privileges and aspirations to the greater good.Smutsviewedevolutionasanintegralpartoftheholismphenomenonastownsgrowintocities,citiesintostates,statesintocountriesandcountriesintoaglobalsociety.Fromeverysub-atomicparticletotheentireuniverse,eachsmallerpartisintegralandsubservienttothelarger.Thisisanearly-modernscientificnotionoftheearthasacompleteorganism(whole)thathasmanyinterdependentparts(smallerwholes)thataresubservienttothelargerorganism.Holismisalsotherationale for regionalismof allmagnitudes,whetherCouncils ofGovernmentswithin states, or country groupings within continents, such as the EuropeanUnion.The philosophy of holism has since matured. Fast forward to 1967 when

Arthur Koestler coined the word “holon” in his book, The Ghost in the

Machine.6Koestlersuggestedthataholonisastableunitwithinalargersystemthatiscontrolledbyotherholonsgreaterthanit,allofwhichareinacontinuousstateofevolution toahigher,morecomplex form.Suchacompletesystemofholonsisreferredtoasaholarchy.Accordingly,“Theentiremachineoflifeandof theUniverse itself evolves toward evermore complex states, as if a ghostwereoperatingthemachine.”7

Personally, I reject this thinking altogether because man is the pinnacle ofcreation and not amere holon thatmust serve the holarchy. In otherwords, Ibelievethatmanisnottobetheservantofnature,butrathernatureistobetheservant of man. In the balance of this book, I will make the case thatTechnocrats,fromthe1930suntilthepresent,viewalloftheholonsintheworldas little more than engineering projects to be analyzed, debugged and re-engineeredaccordingtotheirScientificMethod.Theyareanegotisticalbunch,tobesure,thinkingthattheyalonehavethetechnicalabilitiestosavetherestofus from our ignorance and archaic beliefs such as Christianity, liberty, andpersonalfreedom.

TheDevilintheDetailsItisnomistakethatthereisadecidedlyreligiousaspecttoTechnocracy.Saint-

Simon’s “New Christianity” saw a pressing need to replace historicalChristianity with a secular humanist religion where scientists and engineerswouldconstitutethenewpriesthood.ThisisinstarkcontrasttoNewTestamentChristianitywheretheBiblespeaks

ofthechurch,forinstance,Butyouareachosengeneration,aroyalpriesthood,aholynation,Hisownspecialpeople,thatyoumayproclaimthepraisesofHimwhocalledyououtofdarknessintoHismarvelouslight.(1Peter2:9)Saint-Simon’s New Christianity not only redefined the object of worship -

scienceinsteadofGod-butalsothepriesthoodthatwouldservethisnewgod.However,thissamescenariohasplayeditselfoutinnumerabletimesintheOldandNewTestament.WhentheOneGodoftheuniversewasseenasabandoned,idols and false gods were created to replace Him and to provide various ill-definedbenefits towould-beworshipers.Someprominentexamples in theOldTestamentincludeMarduk,Baal,Bel,Molech,Ashtoreth,Tamuz,Dagon,etc.IntheearlyperiodoftheNewTestamentchurch,competingidolsincludedApollo,Zeus,Helen,Athena,Pluto,Hermesandsoon.Eachoftheseidolshaditsownattendantpriesthood,thatis,thosewhowereallowedtoapproachtheirgodandwhoalonewereallowedtorelaywhattheirgodhadtosaytohis/herfollowers.TosaythatChristianityandidolatryaremutuallyexclusiveiseasilyseeninthe

New Testament where Christians are simply told to “flee from idolatry” (1Corinthians10:14).TheapostlePaulgoesontosay,…thethingswhichtheGentilessacrificetheysacrificetodemonsandnottoGod, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. You cannotdrinkthecupoftheLordandthecupofdemons;youcannotpartakeoftheLord’s table and of the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord tojealousy?ArewestrongerthanHe?(1Corinthians10:20-22)Hereisthecruxofthematter:ThereisaDevilinthedetailsofTechnocracy.

We must be very careful in our examination of Technocracy to see thisundercurrentofreligioussubstitutionbecauseitprovestobethebasisforglobaldeceptiongreaterthananythingtheworldhasseentodate.Technocracy will be shown to be thoroughly anti-Christian and completely

intolerant ofBiblical thought.This has always been the hallmark sign seen inidolatrousreligionsandpractices!

Asstarkas thecontrastmightbeuponcarefulexamination,wewill also seehow threads of Technocracy, Scientism and Transhumanism are interweavingthemselves into the modern Christian church. Many modern Bible-believingChristians are quite disturbed and perplexed by this intrusion into historicChristianity.FortechnocratswhoseeTechnocracyassalvationforbothpoliticalandeconomicstructures,thencertainlyitcanbesalvationforyoursoulaswell.This is very dangerous thinking and is leadingmany Christians and churchesintoastateofactiveapostasy,afallingawayfromtraditionalBiblicaldoctrines,teachingsandpractices.TrilateralCommissionIn 1978 when I co-authored Trilaterals Over Washington Volumes I and II

with the late Antony C. Sutton, we wrote extensively about a newly formedelitist group called the Trilateral Commission that was co-founded byDavidRockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. They chose about 250 elitists fromNorth America, Europe and Japan in order to create a “New InternationalEconomicOrder”(NIEO).Themembershipconsistedofpeoplefromacademia,industry,finance,mediaandgovernment.Suttonand I interpreted theNIEOasa reshufflingofconventionaleconomic

theory,suchasKeynesianism,inorderfortheirmemberstogamethesystemfortheir own benefit. After all, the elite have been known for this type of crassmanipulation to accumulatemoney to themselves at the expense of every oneelseinsociety.WethoughtthiswasthecasewiththeTrilateralCommission.Brzezinski’s 1968 book, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the

TechnetronicEra,waswrittenwhenhewasaprofessoratColumbiaUniversity,yetitwasthisbookthatoriginallyendearedhimtoRockefellerandotherelitists.Sutton and Iwrote extensively onBrzezinski’s philosophy and conclusions asrevealedinBetweenTwoAges,butneitherofushadanyinklingthat theword“Technetronic”mighthavebeenaknockofffortheword“Technocratic”.Why?Because at that time neither of us had any knowledge of Technocracy or itsdoctrines.However,asIwasresearchingthehistoryofTechnocracythethoughtoccurred tome togobackand re-readBetweenTwoAges to see if therewereanyparallelsorconceptualconnectionstoearlyTechnocracy.Needlesstosay,Iwas shocked: throughout his book, Brzezinski was floating the party line ofTechnocracy.Thus, it became increasingly clear to me that the Trilateral Commission’s

original goal of creating a New International Economic Order might actuallymean abandoning status quo economics in favor of a completely different

economicsystemofTechnocracy.Ifthisisthecase,thenithasescapedvirtuallyeveryone’sattentionforthelast40-plusyears!Well,betterlatethannever,Isuppose….Ithereforehopethatyouwillmakea

careful and detailed reading of this book from beginning to end and then dosomediggingonyourowntoseeifthesethingsaretrueornot.In2009,whenIhadformalizedmyresearchonTechnocracytothepointthatI

couldadequatelycommunicateittoothers,Icontactedafewofmyprofessionalcolleagues,allofwhomareverywelleducatedonvariousaspectsofeconomicglobalization, global religion, science and world politics. Not only was theregeneral acceptanceof the research, but themost common responsewas, “Thisconnects all the dots that we could not previously connect.” In other words,Technocracyreally is theglue thatbinds togetherdisparateevents,movementsandconcepts.Onthewhole,ifthisnewknowledgecollectivelydrewalarmfromthem,thenI

realizedthatTechnocracywasmuchbiggerthanIhadoriginallythought.Theynotonlyencouragedme tocontinue thiswork,but theyalsoput themselves tothe task of further research as well. In this sense, I am not writing this bookaloneorinavacuumbutratherwiththeconcurrenceofdisciplinedmindsfromdifferentacademicgenres.Understanding Technocracy will help you to understand and connect

seeminglyunrelatedtopicslike

Agenda21andSustainableDevelopmentLandandwatergrabsbyFederalagenciesICLEI,SmartGrowthandPublic-PrivatePartnershipsCommunitarianism,theThirdWayandCommunitarianLawGlobalWarming/ClimateChangeSmartGrid,CarbonCredits,Cap&Trade

Indeed,allof thesemodernphenomenahavetheirrootsfirmlyplantedin thedoctrinesofearlyTechnocracyasfarbackasthe1930sandbeyond!

2“WhatIsTechnocracy?”,TheTechnocrat,Vol.3,No.4,1938.3QuotedfromTheNewSchoolwebsite,asof10/5/20124TheGreatDebatewebsite,http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/Saint-Simon.html5Dr.PaulMoller,HolismandEvolution,(CollegeofEuropeanandRegionalStudies,2006).6ArthurKoestler,TheGhostintheMachine,(Macmillan,1968),p.48.7PieroMella,TheHolonicRevolution,2009.(PaviaUniversityPress,2009).

T

CHAPTER1

THEBACKDROPFORTECHNOCRACY

echnocracydidnotspringoutofnowhere.Rather,therewereahostofphilosophies co-mingling with each other from at least the mid-1800s

throughtheturnofthecentury.Thiscauldroninitiallyproducedmorediscussionthan action, but itwas inevitable that some strains of thoughtswould solidifyinto society-changing movements. And indeed, they did: Darwinism spawnedthe eugenics movement; Marxist philosophies led directly to the Communistoverthrow in Russia; Fabian socialism was identified with colonialism insouthernAfrica;theTechnocracymovementtookoffinthe1920s,andsoon.Thefact is,“Ideasmatter!”Whatseemslikeacrazy idea todaycould justas

easilychange theworld tomorrow. In that sense, theperiodbetween1890and1930 was a pivotal time for the future of the world. All notions of Biblicalinerrancy and historical accuracy had been discarded by the intellectual elite.Radicalnewinventionscreatedbyscientistsandengineerswererevolutionizingboth the physical and socialworld. The engineered andmechanized slaughterduringWorldWarIsentshockwavestoeverycorneroftheworld.The purpose of this book is to explain Technocracy and not the broader

experience ofworld history. Thus, the following abbreviated statements aboutprominent philosophies and philosophers of the period can only serve as areminder for what peoplewere processing in theirminds at the time. For thecuriousdesiringmoredetail,thereareamyriadofworksavailableinyourlocaloruniversitylibrary.PositivismTheFrenchmanAugusteComte(1798-1857)isknownasthefatherofmodern

sociologyandwasthefounderofPositivism,aphilosophythatwasverypopularin the late1800s.Comtewasconsidered the firstphilosopherof scienceasheelevated science by claiming that the only authentic knowledge is scientificknowledge.This naturally discarded all notions of absolute truth based on theBibleandmetaphysicaltruthbasedonman’simaginations.Comtebelievedthathis “science of society” could be discovered and explained by applying theScientificMethodinthesamemannerasitwasappliedtophysicalscience.Scientism

Scientism takesPositivism to an extremeby claiming that science alone canproduce truth about the world and reality. As such, it is more radical andexclusionary thanPositivism. Scientism rejects all philosophical, religious andmetaphysicalclaims tounderstandreality, since the truth itportendscannotbevalidatedbytheScientificMethod.Thus,scienceistheabsoluteandonlyaccesstotruthandreality.ScientismisoftenseenoversteppingtheboundsofprovablesciencebyapplyingtheScientificMethodtoareasthatcannotbedemonstrated,suchasevolution,climatechangeandsocialscience.ProgressivismAccordingtoonehistorian,progressivismisapoliticalmovementthataddressesideas,impulses,andissuesstemmingfrommodernization of American society. Emerging at the end of the nineteenthcentury,itestablishedmuchofthetoneofAmericanpoliticsthroughoutthefirsthalfofthecentury.8

Industrialization was enabled by science, technology and invention. Asknowledgeincreased,itwassurmisedthatsocietymustchangealongwithit,orat least adapt to it.Progressivescalled forbiggergovernment runbyqualifiedmanagerswith diminishing personal liberty and national sovereignty, but theysimultaneously fought to reducewaste and increase efficiency in government.The emphasis on efficiency drove many progressives into Technocracy sincescienceappearedtobetheonlypathwaytoachieveit.DarwinismThephilosophyofDarwinismgrewoutofCharlesDarwin’sbookTheOrigin

of Species,9 published in 1859, which proposed that all life naturally evolvedoverlongperiodsoftimefromthemostsimplecreaturetothemostcomplex.ItspecificallyrejectedtheBiblicalaccountofcreationandingeneralallthoughtsof intelligent design. By the early 1900s, the concept of Darwinism hadexpanded to use evolution to describe social change and eugenics theories.Eugenics proposed the artificial manipulation of the human “gene pool” viaselective breeding and “cleansing”, as ultimately seen in Hitler’s genocidalrampagesduringWWII.Withtoday’sadvancementinvarioustechnologiessuchas genetic engineering and nano-technology, Transhumanists (TranshumanismandTechnocracybothrelyonScientism)areboldlyclaimingthattheyarenowfirmly in control of the evolutionary process and will direct the creation ofHumanity2.0.Fascism

Merriam-WebsterdefinesFascismasapoliticalphilosophy,movement,orregimethatexaltsnationandoftenraceabovetheindividualandthatstandsforacentralizedautocraticgovernmentheaded by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation,andforciblesuppressionofopposition.WhatdifferentiatesFascism fromCommunism is itsprotectionofbusinesses

andland-holdingelites.Indeed,corporateentitiesduringHitler’swaryearswerevirtually merged with state interests. Today, the term Fascism has multiplenuances,butallpointtoatotalitariansystemwherecorporatismandthestateareseenasfunctionallyequivalent.SocialismThedoctrinesofKarlMarxareseenastheoriginalbasisforSocialismasan

economic and political model. Socialism eschews private property and theaccumulationofwealththroughstate-ownershipofallproductiveresourcesanddistribution based on “to each according to his need.” As with Marxism,Socialismisdescribeddifferentlydependingontheangleofobservation,butthecommondenominatorinallcasesisahighlevelofsocialandeconomiccontrolthrough state-ownership and management with authoritarian control overproduction,distributionandconsumption.FabianismThe Fabian Society was formed in England in 1884. It held to a form of

Socialism(thusoftenreferredtoasFabianSocialism)thatpromotedaslowandindirect transformation of society instead of a more radical approach. It wasnamed after the Roman General Fabius Maximus who used delaying tacticsagainst the Carthaginian army led by the famous general, Hannibal. Over thedecades,many famous individuals becamemembers of the Society, includingH.G.Wells,BernardShaw,VirginiaWoolfandBertrandRussell.SocialactivistBeatriceWebbplayedakey role in forming theSocietyand later founded theLondonSchoolofEconomics.TheFabianSocietyhashadaprofoundinfluenceinmany nations and continents around theworld, includingGreatBritain, theUnitedStates,EuropeandsouthernAfrica.

TheInfluencersHenriSaint-Simon(1760-1825)Saint-SimonwasrecognizedasthefatherofTechnocracybytheTechnocrats

themselves.Hecouldalsobeconsideredthephilosophicalfatheroftheso-called“emerging church” that is becomingprominent around theworld today.Saint-Simonwas born into an aristocratic family in France, fought in theAmericanRevolutionand later turned toa lifeofwritingandphilosophicalcriticism.Hedeveloped many radical strains of thought that influenced people after him,includingKarlMarx,Jean-JacquesRousseauandAugusteComteamongothers.He proposed a Christian socialism where everyone would be part of the“brotherhoodofman”, and suggested thatprivateproperty shouldgiveway tosocietalmanagementbyexperts,ortechnocrats.HisNewChristianityalsocalledforchurches tobeadministeredbyexpertswhowoulddirect theirparishionersintosocialprogramsdesignedtoreformtheworldandalleviatepoverty.10

AugusteComte(1798-1857)Comte was Saint-Simon’s most famous student and was the founder of

Positivism which was popular in the second half of the 1800s. As the first“philosopherofscience”,Comte isalsocreditedasbeing the fatherofmodernsociology. Like Saint-Simon, Comte also placed a large focus on religion bycreating the “Religion of Humanity”, which some called “Catholicism plusscience”andotherscalled“CatholicismwithoutChrist”.11ComtealsofollowedSaint-Simon’s concept of evolutionary history by formulating three stages ofsocietal development: Theological, Metaphysical and Positive, with the latermeaning that the laws of science that control the world are fully known andunderstood.ThorsteinVeblen(1857-1929)Born in America, Veblen was an economist and sociologist who followed

Saint-Simon’s and Comte’s theory of evolutionary history by combiningDarwinian evolution with his own institutional economics. As a prominentfigureintheprogressivemovement,hewasfiercelycriticalofcapitalismwhilehechampionedaleadershipofa“sovietofengineers”.In1919,VeblenhelpedfoundtheNewSchoolForSocialResearch(todaycalledTheNewSchool)thatbecame a seedbed of radical thought. The New School is where Veblen metHowardScott, thesoon-to-be leaderof theTechnocracymovement in theU.S.In the early 1920s, Veblen, Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert were all

membersoftheTechnicalAlliance,aprecursortotheTechnocracymovement.EarlyTechnocratsuniversallycreditVeblenasa leaderof theirearlyefforts todefine and organize a technocratic movement. Ironically, Veblen died threemonthsbefore thestockmarketcrash in1929,whichproved tobe thecatalystforwide-spreadpublicinterestinTechnocracy.FrederickTaylor(1856-1915)TaylorwasanAmericanmechanicalengineerwhobecamefixatedonwaysto

increase efficiency inmanufacturing processes andworked for years studyingandmaking improvements. In1911,hepublishedhisseminalwork,Principlesof Scientific Management12 and changed the world of business managementforever. Because of his expertise and problem-solving skills, Taylor alsoinadvertently invented the profession of business consulting. As his notorietyspread, the word “Taylorism” became a synonym for ScientificManagement.TaylorismwaswidelyadoptedintheUSSRasameansofincreasingproductionwithouthavingtoincreaseeducationandtraining.EdwardBellamy(1850-1898)The writings and activism of Edward Bellamy, a dedicated socialist, were

widelyreceivedbytheTechnocracymovementafterhisdeath.Hismostfamousliterarywork,LookingBackward,13wasaRipVanWinklesortoftalewherethehero wakes up in the year 2000 and is then shown how society has changed(looking backward) in the intervening 100 plus years; it describes a Utopiawhere the state ownsonehundredpercent of themeansof production, runbyexperts,andeveryoneinsocietyhasallhisneedsmetwhile living inharmonywith each other. The book was an immediate best-seller and created anenthusiastic socialmovement that lastedover 10years.TheNationalistClubs,which promoted the socialist idea of nationalizing all business, ultimately had162 chapters across the U.S., with 65 of them originating in California. Notincidentally, California later became a hotbed for Technocracy meetings andorganizations.

TheCauldronWere these the only philosophies and people contributing to the buildup to

Technocracy? Absolutely not. These are standouts, however, that help us tounderstand the complex mix out of which Technocracy arose. Starting withSaint-Simon,ittookover100yearsforTechnocracytocongealandfinallyariseas serious academic and social movements. Today, 80-100 years later,Technocracyhasincreaseditsgripandinfluenceovertheaffairsofmen.Allofthis is to say that Technocracywas not some poorly thought out whim of anuneducated crackpot. To the contrary, the progenitors of Technocracy includeacademic professors, philosophers, inventors, social activists and prominentmembersofsociety.Setting differences aside, one can easily identify some common threads:

rejectionof capitalism, distributedwealth, state-ownershipof industry, rule byexpertsinsteadofpoliticians,historicalandsocietalevolutionasguidesforthefuture,thepreeminenceofscienceandtheexclusionofBiblicalChristianity.Ifutopianscientistsandengineerswerethoroughlyhookedontheevolutionary

progressofmanandsocietybythe1920s,howmuchmorecleveraretheytodayas they strive to take evolution into their own hands to create their owndestinies?AstheprestigiousSmithsonianMagazinestatedin2012,Adherentsof“transhumanism”—amovement thatseeksto transformHomosapiens through tools like gene manipulation, “smart drugs” andnanomedicine—hail [scientific] developments as evidence that we arebecomingtheengineersofourownevolution.14[Emphasisadded]

8AlonzoL.Harriby,“Progressivism:ACenturyofChangeandRebirth,”inProgressivismandtheNewDemocracy,ed.SidneyM.MilkisandJeromeM.Mileur(UniversityofMassachusettsPress,1999).9CharlesDarwin,TheOriginofSpecies,(London:J.Murray,1859).10HenriSaint-Simon,TheNewChristianity,(London:B.DCousins,1825).11Arthur,ReligionwithoutGodandGodwithoutreligion,(London:Bemrose&Sons,1885),p.142.12FredericTaylor,PrinciplesofScientificManagement,(Harper&Brothers,1911).13E.Bellamy,LookingBackward,(Boston:Ticknor,1888).14AbigailTucker,“Howtobecomeengineersofourownevolution”,SmithsonianMagazine,April12,2012.

T

CHAPTER2

FROMPASSIONTOMELTDOWN(1920-1940)THE

BASICPROBLEMWASTHATTHETECHNOCRATS’SOCIALANALYSISLACKED

APOLITICALTHEORYOFACTION.15he1920swerenotconducivetopublicacceptanceofTechnocracy,nor

wasitevenawarethatprominenteducators,scientistsandengineerswerezealously laying thegroundwork for it.The interludebetween thecatastrophesofWorldWarI,whichendedinNovember1918,andtheSeptember1929stockmarketcrashwasamere11years.Duringthattime,allsortsofsocietalchangeswouldtakeplacethatwouldtainttheentirelandscapeforthenext100years.DuringtheGreatWar,over9millioncombatantsdied.Thisshockedtheentire

world, not only because of the number of dead, but themeans bywhich theydied. Itwas the first technology-drivenwar in the history of theworld: ships,tanks,airplanes,highexplosives,machineguns,radio,chemicalwarfare,etc.Thepublicgotoveritquicklyenoughandthrewthemselvesintothereckless

Roaring 20s that were full of hedonistic abandon. Before the crash in 1929,pretty much everyone believed that prosperity and good times would lastforever.Theyhadassurancesfromallquartersthattheworldwasdonewithwar,thateveryonehadlearnedhislessonandwouldneverletithappenagain.With10 years of economic boom behind them, they also had assurances thateconomic prosperity was a permanent fixture. Life was good. Capitalismwasgreat.Peaceandprosperityforall.Americawaslivingthedream!However, because of the technology used in theGreatWar, the engineering

professionwassufferingfromamixtureofguiltandsocietalangst.Technologythat theyhadcollectively inventedhadgone terriblywrongandresulted in themechanized death of millions. Furthermore, they reasoned, society had beenfundamentally changedwith the inclusion of technology, and politicianswereobviously incapable of managing the resulting hybrid society. In their view,technology was certain to continue its transformative pace and if they -scientists, engineers and technicians - were not allowed to run it, then the

outcome would most certainly be further disasters. Thus, as theories ofengineeringblendedwithvarious shadesofComte’spositivism, thebrainchildofTechnocracywasborn.The intellectual andphilosophical stew that fed thisbrainchildwas seasoned

withprogressivethought,Positivism,TaylorismandTaylor’sScientificMethodofmanagement,Darwinismandeugenics. (According to theAmericanJournalof Sociology, “Eugenics is the science which deals with all influences thatimprovetheinbornqualitiesofarace;alsowiththosethatdevelopthemtotheutmostadvantage.”)16

Furthermore,thankstoAugusteComteandhis“scienceofsociety”,theearlyTechnocratsbelievedthattheycouldengineersocietybyapplyingtheScientificMethod in the samemanner as itwas applied to physical science.Thiswas amistake,butonethatwasneverrecognizedassuch,eventothisday.Tothem,the simple fact that the world was becoming even more techno-centric onlyfueled the urgency of their discussions and planning for Technocracy. Theyalonecouldsavetheworldfromitselfwhilepoliticianswerecertaintojustmakeitworse.By 1921, Frederick Taylor’s masterpiece, The Principles of Scientific

Management (1911), had 10 years to influence business, government andsociety.TheessenceofScientificManagementwasScience,notruleofthumb.

Harmony,notdiscord.Cooperation,notindividualism.Maximumoutput,inplaceofrestrictedoutput.Thedevelopmentofeachmantohisgreatestefficiencyandprosperity.17

Taylor’s theoriesnotonlycaptivated theU.S.but theentireworld, includingtheU.S.S.RandGermany.Taylor’sfamoustime-and-motionstudiesprovedthatworkers could be driven to a level of efficiency and production never beforerealized.One historian concluded that Taylor…asked the public to impose scientific

management on reluctant businesses and unions for the good of the whole.Tayloritesbegantoarguethatthesystempromisedashiftfromarbitrarypowertoscientificadministrationnotonlyinthefactorybutinsocietyaswell.Suchashiftwouldbringabouttherealizationofsocialharmonythrough,asoneyoungTaylorite engineerwrote, “the organization of human affairs in harmonywithnaturallaws”…Suchideaswereheadystuffforengineers.18WhentheGreatWarstarted in1914,Taylorismwasreachingits initialnadir

justintimetobeappliedtowartimeeconomies.Factoriescrankedoutweaponswithprecisionassemblylinesstaffedbyrobot-likehumansperformingthesamerepetitive tasks up to 16 hours per day. Taylor had leveled the playing field,however,becauseall thevariouscombatantshad learnedand implemented thesametechniques.Indeed,engineershadalottothinkaboutintheearly1920s.Intheend,they

essentially concluded that itwas not their fault that technology had failed theworld,butratherthefaultofignorantandcorruptpoliticianswhodidnotknowhowtohandlewhattheydidnotunderstand.Bythefallof1919,itwasThorsteinVeblenwhobegantocallforarevolution

of engineers. As co-founder and professor of TheNew School in NewYork,Veblen’sideaswerenotyetwell-knownbymanyengineers,buttheycaughttheattentionof a radical youngupstart by thenameofHowardScott,whowouldremainanadvocateforTechnocracyfortherestofhislife.Infact,itwasScottwholaterfoundedTechnocracy,Inc.inearly1934.Thus, in 1919, Veblen and Scott started a group they called the “Technical

Alliance”toorganizea“sovietoftechnicians”.TheAlliancefailedmiserablytoattractmanylike-mindedengineers,butVeblencontinuedtosponsordiscussionsabouthisproposedrevolutionatTheNewSchool.By1921,VeblenwasreadytotryagainanddidsowiththereleaseofhisEngineersandthePriceSystemthattookall theblindersoff.Heplainlystated,If thecountry’sproductive industrywerecompetentlyorganizedasasystematicwhole,andwere thenmanagedbycompetenttechnicianswithaneyesingletomaximumproductionofgoodsandservicesinsteadof,asnow,beingmanhandledbyignorantbusinessmenwithaneyesingletomaximumprofits;theresultingoutputofgoodsandserviceswoulddoubtlessexceedthecurrentoutputbyseveralhundredpercent.19

HowardScottwastrulyadiscipleofVeblenatthispointbutnotwithoutevenmore radical ideasofhisown. ItwasScottwhofirstproposed thatanenergy-based value system would eliminate profit motives and provide a purelyfunctionalbasisfortheorganizationofsociety.By1922,astheearlyorganizingeffortscametoanend,Veblenmoderatedhis

activismandScott essentiallydroppedoutof sight.Hecontinued to stump forhisradicaltheoriesinrestaurants,coffeehousesandspeakeasiesinhishometownofGreenwichVillageinLowerManhattan.Nobodytookhimveryseriously,andmanyconsideredhimaboorish,yetflamboyant,blowhard.GreenwichVillage,knownasabohemianartistandnon-conformistcommunity,wasperfectlyfitforScottandevenledsometocallhimthe“BohemianEngineer”.

Columbia University In 1932, Walter Rautenstrauch was a professor atColumbiaUniversityandheadedtheDepartmentofIndustrialEngineeringwhichhehadpreviouslyfoundedasthefirstsuchdepartmentinthenation.ItisnotcertainhowScottandRautenstrauchmet,butitwasimmediatelyclear toboth of them that they shareda common interest inpromoting asystemofTechnocracy runby engineers, scientists and technicians. Scott,beingaminorfigurefromGreenwichVillage, latchedontotheprestigiousRautenstrauchashistickettostardom.RautenstrauchapproachedNicholasMurrayButler,thepresidentofColumbia,

foragreenlighttocompleteanindustrialsurveyofNorthAmerica,whichScotthadstartedyearsbeforewithhisfailedTechnicalAlliance.BothColumbiaandButlerpridedthemselvesforbeingonthecutting-edgeofprogressiveradicalism,and Technocracy was appealing. Thus, with one stroke of the pen, Scott hadColumbia’sfacilitiesathisdisposalaswellasitsprestigiousreputation.ItwaslaterrevealedthatScotthadmisrepresentedhisownacademiccredentials,neverhavinggraduatedfromarecognizeduniversity,soitisunderstandablewhyScottviewedthisnewassociationasthebiggestbreakofhislife.In the early fall of 1932, Rautenstrauch and Scott hastily formed the

Committee on Technocracy to supervise the industrial survey project. Itsmemberswere drawn from otherColumbiaUniversity educators and includedanothersoon-to-bekeyplayerinScott’slife,M.KingHubbert.Scottbecamethe“consulting technologist” on the Committee, and it was his methodology thatwouldbeusedtoconductthesurvey.Financialresourceswerehardtocomebyduring The Great Depression, so one of Scott’s colleagues convinced theArchitects’EmergencyReliefCommittee ofNewYork to fund the project bymaking dozens of unemployed architects available to work on the survey atColumbia. This engineering workforce was likely housed in the basement ofHamiltonHallatColumbiawhereothertemporaryprojectshadbeenlocatedinpreviousyears.Ina2006biographyonNicholasMurrayButler,MichaelRosenthal revealed

whathappenednext:EnthralledbyScott’smessianicfervor,Butlerinvitedhimin 1932 to come to Columbia, working in the Department of IndustrialEngineering, to conduct research into the history of American industrialdevelopmentasseenthroughacomplexseriesofenergymeasurements.WhenitbecameknowninAugustthatScottandhisfellowtechnocratswereestablishedat Columbia, interest in Technocracy exploded. A dance was named after it,Scott became a sought-after speaker, and The Nation proclaimed his theories

revolutionary. Butler tried to dampen expectations about its potential… but itwasclearthathewasexcitedtohavecaptureditforColumbia.20

This instant notoriety had a drug-like effect on Scott who already sufferedfrom an over-inflated view of his own importance.After his death in 1970, aCanadianpaperranafeatureontheTechnocracymovementandScott’sroleinit: Howard Scott, the messiah-like originator of Technocracy, a graduate ofColumbiaUniversity, acted asDirector-in-Chief until his death in 1970 at theageof80.Hewasagenius,Servicesayswith thesame touchofawe inhisvoice.Hewas a man for another world, a man who spoke to the sum total ofconditionedbrainsinthepricesystem.Scottwasthefirstofmanyonearthtoco-relate the symbols of technology, science and energy into a workingsystem.21

ItmaynothavebeenScott’sideatopositionhimselfasamessiah,butneitherdid he do anything to discourage it. Hewas also not a graduate of ColumbiaUniversity but apparently did nothing to correct that assumption either. Scottwasmuchmorethepromoterthantheengineer,andpromotersareoftenknowntobaskinaccoladesandunsolicitedattention.Just three months later in January 1933, the Committee on Technocracy

abruptly fell apart. Although the industrial survey was still incomplete, Scottbegan to reveal his pre-conceived ideas on Technocracy as a social system,beingfullyconvincedthattheresultsofhissurveywouldcompletelysupporthisconclusions. It is important to remember that Scott’s radical ideas aboutTechnocracyweredevelopedandtemperedat thefeetofhismentor,ThorsteinVeblen. Rautenstrauch had taken a different path, studying and applyingTaylor’s scientificmanagement principles and those ofHenryGantt,who hadworkedcloselywithTaylorinthe1890s.GanttalsohadexperiencewithVeblen,butnot to the extentofScott.Second,Rautenstrauchwasawell-educatedandhighlyrespectedengineerwithasplendidreputation;Scottdidn’thaveadegreeat all which also explained the serious flaws in his design skills andmethodology. As Rautenstrauch’s confidence in Scott was shaken, he wasdoubly alarmed by Scott’s radical ideas being expressed even before theIndustrialSurveywascompleted.ForRautenstrauch,prescribingapplicationforany project was never proposed until all the “evidence” was gathered andanalyzed.Third,RautenstrauchwasuneasywiththeblazinglimelightthatScottbroughttotheproject.Some reporters began to more closely investigate Scott’s background and

educationalcredentials,and theirnegative findingsproved tobe theproverbialstrawthatbrokethecamel’sback.ThepresssubsequentlyturnedonScottand,hence, Columbia University. The head of Columbia, NicholasMurray Butler,cherishedapositivelimelight,butScottwasgivingthewholeuniversityaverylargeblackeye.Theentireprojectwassummarilyforcedtoleavethecampus.It isimportanttonotethatthereweretwoforksofTechnocracyatthispoint.

Scott would go on to create themore radical Technocracy, Inc., in late 1933whileRautenstrauchandtheotherprofessorsstayedonatColumbiawithaless-radicalformofacademicTechnocracythatcontinuedthecoreconceptsbutnotthename;tothem,thewordTechnocracyhadbecometoxicandsimplywasnotused again for fear of being re-associatedwithHoward Scott. This hush-hushwasreinforcedbythepresswhenRandolphHearst,whocontrolledasignificantportion of the nation’s media at the time, released a memo forbidding staffreporters from mentioning the word “Technocracy” under penalty of beingimmediately fired.Scott did salvageone relationshipwith ayounggeophysicsinstructoratColumbiawhohadbeeneager to join theCommitteewhen itwasfirstannounced:M.KingHubbert.Byearly1933,humiliatedandaccused,Scott’spersonallifewentfrombadto

worse, hitting bottom inMarch1933.Anunpaid judgment of $1,640 that hadbeen levied against him in 1923 came home to roost, and he was called toaccount. Still unable to pay, Scott testified before a judge that he owned nosignificantpropertyandthathewascurrentlylivingattheapartmentofM.KingHubbert in Greenwich Village. He also admitted to the judge that he did nothaveacollegedegree.22

Castingpersonaldefeataside,Scottsawopportunitywhenherealizedthathehadraisedasignificant followingof radicalsaround theU.S.andCanadawhowere enthralled with his vision for Technocracy and didn’t care whetherColumbiaUniversitywas involvedornot.Neitherdid theycare thatScottwaspersonallybankruptandanincompetentbusinessmanager.Theywantedchange,evenradicalchange,now!During the latterpartof1933,withScott still imposingonM.KingHubbert

forlivingarrangements,theymadetheirmove.Hubbertwasabrilliantandwell-educated geophysicist who was willing to work with Scott and provided acontinuing semblance of credibility to Scott’s radicalism. Under Scott’sdirection,Hubbert’sscientificskillsandknowledgeofengineeringcouldfurthereducatehimandprovideasolidbasefromwhichtotravelthecountrystumpingfor Technocracy. As they conspired to carry Technocracy further, Scott and

Hubbert compiledarticlesof incorporation in late1933and subsequently filedthem in early 1934 in New York to create a membership organization calledTechnocracy,Inc.SocietywasripeforTechnocracyduringthedepthsoftheGreatDepression.It

certainly appeared that capitalism was dead. Joblessness, deflation, hunger,angeratpoliticiansandcapitalists,andothersocialstresseshadpeoplebeggingfor an explanation as to what went wrong and what could be done to fix it.Technocracy, Inc. had both: Capitalism had died a natural death, and a newTechnocracy-oriented society would save them. The engineers, scientists andtechnicians who would operate this Technocratic Utopia would eliminate allwasteandcorruption,peoplewouldonlyhavetowork20hoursperweek,andevery person would have a job! Abundance would be everywhere. The onlyprice for this was that they had to get rid of the politicians and the politicalinstitutionsandletthetechnocratsrunthingsinstead.Nobodyprotestedbecausemostalreadywantedtothrowthepoliticiansout,whomtheyhadalreadyblamedfortheDepression.This sentimentwas reinforced inabookbyHarryA.Porter released in later

1932 titled Roosevelt and Technocracy, where he assured that Just as theReformation established Religious Freedom, just as the Declaration ofIndependence brought about our Political Freedom, Technocracy promisesEconomicFreedom.23

Porter’s plan included abandoning the gold standard, suspending the stockexchanges and nationalizing railroads and public utilities. Freedomnotwithstanding,PorterthencalledforPresident-electFranklinD.Roosevelt tobe sworn in as Dictator rather than President so that he could overturn theexisting economic system in favor of Technocracy: Drastic as these changesfromthepresentorderofthingsmaybe,theywillservetheirpurposeifonlytopavethewayfortheEconomicRevolution–andTechnocracy.24

Roosevelt didn’t take Porter up on declaring himself dictator, but he didabolish the gold standard, confiscated all the citizens’ gold, and nationalizedcertain industries. Otherwise, the egocentric Roosevelt was happy enough toimplementmany of Technocracy’s other ideas, but there was noway he wasgoingtohandthecountryovertoTechnocracy’stechnicalcadre.Technocracy,Inc.Depression notwithstanding, Howard Scott presented a utopian dream that

technologyheldthekeytorelievemanfromthedrudgeryoflabor.Othercritics

might think that he merely used that promise to deceive more people intobecoming members of his almost cult-like following. After all, a free lunchsounds mighty pleasing to someone out of work and with a family to feed.Second, he knew perfectlywell how to leverage the public’s increasing angeragainstpoliticians,bankersandindustrialiststohisownadvantage.Finally,therewasthesmoke-and-mirroraspectoftheincompleteandfaultysciencethatScottused to convince people that Technocracy could actually work to everyone’sbenefit. Such a phenomenon was reminiscent of the “magic elixir” medicinalcure-alls soldduring the1800s thatpromised to cure anyandall diseases thatonecouldpossiblyhave.With the memory of the Great War still fresh in the minds of many, the

beginningofWorldWarIIonSeptember1,1939wasearth-shaking.Germany’sinvasionofPolandallbutguaranteedtoinvolveallofEurope.JapanandChinawerealreadyatwarwitheachother,addingtotheriskofanall-outWorldWar.Thus, themomentum and impact ofTechnocracy, Inc. sharplywaned into the1940s,anditneverregaineditsformerattractionagain.However,duringthoseinterveningyears,between1933and1939, themarchofTechnocracy,Inc. leftanindeliblemarkonhistory.Unfortunately,historiansrecordedverylittleofthisera because of the previous Hearst editorial moratorium on the word“Technocracy”.Immediately upon incorporation of Technocracy, Inc. in 1934, Scott and

Hubbert recognized that they needed to create amanifesto that would clearlycommunicatetheirvisiontothepublic.Workingfeverishlytomeetthepublic’sdemand for more information, they completed and published the 280 pageTechnocracyStudyCourse25thatsameyear.Itestablishedadetailedframeworkfor Technocracy in terms of energy production, distribution and usage.UnderScott’sclosesupervision,itwasactuallyHubbertwhopennedmostofthepages.AsfarasScottwasconcerned,thiswasthefirstfullexpressionofwhathereallyhadinmindforTechnocracy;previously,onlybitsandpieceshadbeenrevealedhereandthereinspeechesandnewspaperarticles.Thepublicdemandedmore,and independent of Scott’s organizational efforts, many study groups hadspontaneously popped up around the nation and in Canada. The wordTechnocracywasonthelipsofliterallyhundredsofthousandsofpeople.Scottknew that he had a limited amount of time to convert these groups into themembershiprollsofTechnocracy,Inc.TomorefullyunderstandwhatScottandHubberthadtooffer,wemustlookcarefullyattheTechnocracyStudyCourse.TechnocracyStudyCourseThistreatisewasspecificallydesignedasastudy

coursetofulfilltheneedsofindividualgroupsthatweremeetinginhomes,halls,churchesandgrangesacrosstheU.S.andCanada.Withouttop-downguidance, different groups were headed in different directions. The bigquestion is, what was the ideology that Scott and Hubbert intended toimplant?The Preface of the Study Course details some basic elements of the

organization itself: Technocracy, Inc. is a non-profitmembership organizationincorporated under the laws of the State of New York. It is a ContinentalOrganization.Itisnotafinancialracketorapoliticalparty.Technocracy, Inc. operates only on theNorthAmericanContinent throughthestructureof itsownContinentalHeadquarters,AreaControls,RegionalDivisions, Sections and Organizers as a self-disciplined self-controlledorganization….TechnocracydeclaresthatthisContinenthasarendezvouswithDestiny;thatthis Continentmust decide between Abundance andChaoswithin the nextfewyears.Technocracyrealizes that thisdecisionmustbemadebyamassmovement of North Americans trained and self-disciplined, capable ofoperatinga technologicalmechanismofproductionanddistributionon theContinentwhenthepresentPriceSystembecomesimpotenttooperate….Technocracy offers the specifications and the blueprints of Continentalphysicaloperationsfortheproductionofabundanceforeverycitizen.26

Herewesee,first,anorganizationalstructurewithanintensivehierarchythatroughly resembles a para-military organization: Headquarters, Controls,Divisions,Sections,etc.Second,itisinterestingtonotethattheyhadtoassurereaders that Technocracy, Inc. was “not a financial racket or political party”;apparentlytheyhadbeenaccusedofboth.Third,theStudyCourseisablueprintfor the future. As such, a blueprint normally contains diagrams of variouselevations and details such as are necessary for the complete and forthwithconstructionof a buildingor structure.Thus,we should treat theTechnocracyStudyCoursewithduerespectthatitspurposeisveryclear;ScottandHubbertintendedtobuildanewsocietythatdidnotcurrentlyexist.InthePreface,aglimpseintothescopeofTechnocracyisseen:Technocracy

isdealingwithsocialphenomenainthewidestsenseoftheword;thisincludesnot only actions of human beings, but also everything which directly orindirectly affects their actions. Consequently, the studies of Technocracyembracepractically thewholefieldofscienceandindustry.Biology,climate,

natural resources, and industrial equipment all enter into the social picture.27[Emphasisadded]ThereisnodoubtthatTechnocracy,Inc.intendedtobeanagentofchangefor

anewsocialstructure,althoughtherewasnothingthatqualifiedeitherScottorHubberttoplaytheroleofsociologists.Thatdidnothinderthemintheslightest.Simply put, they believed that the actions of human beings, both direct andindirect, were the root cause of societal problems and that they were directlyrelated to biology, climate and natural resources. The absence of enlightenedscientific management would doom mankind to certain destruction. It is notcoincidental that themostvisible andmanipulativemodernagentsof change -Sustainable Development, Agenda 21, global warming, the U.N.’s greeneconomy and the modern ecology movement, etc. - all hold to the sameunderlyingassumptions.Scott’s version of Technocracy was intensely focused on energy. Whether

humanormechanical,allworkinvolvestheexpenditureofenergy.Humansandbeastsofburdeneatfood,andmachinesconsumeelectricity,gas,oil,etc.Thisemphasisonenergywasmostcertainly fine-tunedby thepresenceofM.KingHubbertwhowasawell-educatedandaspiringgeophysicist trained inenergy-related science. In 1955, Hubbert went on to create his “Peak Oil Theory”,commonly known as Hubbert’s Peak, that stated that known reserves of oilwould peak and go into decline as demand and consumption increased to anunsustainablelevel.ItisalsonotcoincidentalthatHubbertisoftenreveredasa“founding father” of the modern environmental and Sustainable Developmentmovements.According toScott andHubbert, thedistributionofenergy resourcesand the

goodstheyproducemustbemonitoredandmeasuredinorderfortheirsystemtowork.Everyengineerknows thatyoucannotcontrolwhatyoucannotmonitorand measure. Both Scott and Hubbert were keenly aware that constantmonitoring and precise measuring would enable them to control society withscientificprecision.It is not surprising then that the first five out of seven requirements for

Technocracywere:

Register on a continuous 24 hour-per-day basis the total netconversionofenergy.Bymeansoftheregistrationofenergyconvertedandconsumed,makepossibleabalancedload.

Provideacontinuousinventoryofallproductionandconsumption.Provideaspecificregistrationofthetype,kind,etc.,ofallgoodsandservices,whereproducedandwhereused.Provide specific registration of the consumption of each individual,plusarecordanddescriptionoftheindividual.28

In 1934, such technology did not exist. Timewas on the Technocrat’s side,however, because this technology does exist today, and it is being rapidlyimplemented to do exactly what Scott and Hubbert specified, namely, toexhaustivelymonitor,measureandcontroleveryfacetofindividualactivityandeveryampereofenergydeliveredandconsumed in the lifeof such individual.The end result of centralized control of all societywas clearly spelled out onpage240:Theend-productsattainedbyahigh-energysocialmechanismontheNorthAmericanContinentwillbe:(a)Ahighphysicalstandardofliving,(b)ahigh standard of public health, (ç) a minimum of unnecessary labor, (d) aminimumofwastageofnon-replaceableresources,(e)aneducationalsystemtotraintheentireyoungergenerationindiscriminatelyasregardsallconsiderationsotherthaninherentability-aContinentalsystemofhumanconditioning.Theachievementoftheseendswillresultfromacentralizedcontrolwithasocialorganizationbuiltalongfunctionallines…29[Emphasisadded]A word must be said about the above mention of the North American

continent.BothScottandHubbertviewedtheentirecontinent,fromMexicotoCanada,asthelogicalminimumunitforTechnocracy.Theyneverspecifiedhowsuchamergermighttakeplace.IfRoosevelthadbecomedictatorasproposedbyPorter30, perhaps he might have led a military campaign to conquer our twoclosest neighbors. Whatever the case, it was presumptuous from the start toassume that Canada andMexicowouldwillingly participate in Technocracy’sutopian scheme, giving up their respective political systems simply because agroupofradicalengineerssuggestedit.WhatisparticularlydisturbingisScott’sandHubbert’stotaldisregardforthenation-stateandnationalsovereignty;theywouldhavewipedawaybothwiththestrokeofapen.Itisnotcoincidentalthattoday’scallforaNewWorldOrderispredicatedonthesameassumednecessityoferadicatingnationalsovereigntyandthestructureofthenation-state.TheTechnocracyStudyCoursealsocalledformoneytobereplacedbyEnergy

Certificateswhichwouldbeissuedtoallcitizensatthestartofeachnewenergyaccounting period. These certificates could be spent for goods and servicesduringthedefinedperiodbutwouldexpirejustasanewallotmentforthenext

periodwould be sent. Thus, the accumulation of privatewealthwould not bepossible. Neither Scott nor Hubbert viewed private property or accumulatedwealthasallowableinaTechnocracy.Afterall,itwascapitalismthatcausedallthetroubleinthefirstplace,andtheaccumulationofwealthduetoownershipofprivate propertywas the primary culprit. In aTechnocracy, then, all property,resources and themeans of productionwould be held in a public trust for thebenefit of all. They reasoned that since all needs forwork, leisure and healthweretobesoabundantlymet,peoplewouldwillinglytradeprivatepropertyfortheutopiandream.By1937,thetopicofTechnocracyhadbeendiscussed,analyzed,arguedover,

rehashed and regurgitated. Thiswas an inevitable outcome given the compleximplications of trading one economic system for another. People’s fearswereignitedbytheprospectofsuchchange,andsotherewasneveranendtoheatedinterchanges. By this time, however, Technocracy, Inc. finally produced aconcise definition that adequately revealed what it was really all about:Technocracyisthescienceofsocialengineering,thescientificoperationoftheentire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to theentirepopulationofthiscontinent.Forthefirsttimeinhumanhistoryitwillbedoneasascientific,technical,engineeringproblem.31[Emphasisadded]William Knight It is not certain how William Knight was originallyintroduced to Howard Scott, but it was likely through the TechnicalAlliancethatwascreatedbyVeblenandScottin1919.Scottthoughthighlyenough of Knight to appoint him to be Director of Operations ofTechnocracy,Inc.Knight was attributed to have been an associate of the famous electrical

engineerandradicalsocialist,CharlesSteinmetz,whoislargelycreditedforhistheoryanddevelopmentofalternatingcurrentthathelpedtoenabletheindustrialrevolution.SteinmetzwasborninGermanybutwasforcedtofleebecauseofhisradicalessaysonsocialism,makinghiswaytoGreenwichVillageintimetojoinideologicalforceswithThorsteinVeblen,HowardScottandtheothermembersoftheTechnicalAlliancein1919.Steinmetz was definitely a radical player and decidedly pro-communist.

According toonehistorian,Steinmetz ...sawelectrificationas thechiefagencyof Socialism and on Lenin’s seizure of power he offered to assist “in thetechnical sphere and particularly in the matter of electrification in a practicalway,andwithadvice.”Leninrepliedregrettingthathecouldnottakeadvantage

of his offer but enclosing his picture, which Steinmetz promptly placed in aplaceofhonorinhislaboratory.32

IfKnightwere present atmeetings of theTechnicalAlliance, itwould havebeenSteinmetz,VeblenandScottwhoshapedhisviewsofTechnocracy.EventhoughthereweredifferencesofopinionontheimplementationofTechnocracy,Knightapparentlyremainedaloyalunderlingfortherestofhislife,inspiteofTechnocracy’sdeclineinpopularityafter the1930s.However, thereismoretoKnight’sinvolvement,asonehistoriannotes,ScottplacedamannamedWilliamKnightinchargeofpoliticalorganization.Knightwasanaeronauticalengineerwho had been employed by various American subsidiaries of the Germanaircraft industry. Knight was clearly a Hitler supporter, and steeredTechnocracy, Inc. toward the Nazi model. Scott began to wear a doublebreastedblacksuit,grayshirtandbluenecktie.TheTechnocracy,Inc.rankandfile,inturn,donnedgrayuniformsandadoptedfasciststylesalutesofgreeting.They also deployed fleets ofmetallic gray automobiles and rigidmarches andformations. Knight was convinced that for Technocracy to move forward itwouldhavetorecognizethat itwasarevolutionarymovement.DespiteScott’sembrace of his new authoritarian image, however, Knight was frustrated atScott’s lack of charisma and the decisiveness needed in amodern “Leader”.33[Emphasisadded]Original photographs of Technocracy, Inc.’smeetings and activities confirm

therigidlyenforceddresscode,andwhilesympathizersmayhavethoughtit tobe clever, it was very disconcerting to non-Technocrats. Making a visualconnectionbetweenTechnocratsandtheriseofHitlerinNaziGermanywasnotdifficultformostAmericans.Knight lobbied Scott to turn Technocracy, Inc. into a revolution, but Scott

refused believing that the certain collapse of capitalism would automaticallylaunch Technocracy into power. In any case, Scott hated politicians and thepoliticalsystemandvieweda“politicalrevolution”asjustanotherexpressionofpolitics.HistorianWilliamAikenhadthistosayaboutKnight:HethoughtScottthe“greatestprophetsinceJesusChrist”butwasalsocertainthat“hewillneverlead a revolution except inGreenwichVillage.” InKnight’s view “Howard isnotmadeoutofthestuffofaLenin,aMussolinioraHitler.Wemusthavemenwhoknowwhatarevolutionmeansandhowtobringitabout.”34

HistorydoesnotrecordmuchmoreaboutKnight,butwecanbethankfulthathis strategydidnotprevailand thathe remaineda loyal followerofScott,nototherwise attempting an end-run around him to promote open revolution.

TechnocracymightwellhavesucceededifScotthadadoptedKnight’spoliticaltheoryforaction.In any case, American democracy was found to be unwilling to entertain

Technocracy,anditwassoundlyrepudiatedforallofthesereasons:

NationalsovereigntyandtheConstitutionalformofgovernmentwerenotdispensable.Nobodywaswilling togiveupprivatepropertyor thepossibilityofaccumulatingprivatewealth.TheapparentsimilaritiesbetweenTechnocracy,Inc.andNazifascismwereabhorrenttomostAmericans.ThegrandiosepromisesofTechnocracywereseenassomuch“freelunch”,andtowardtheendoftheGreatDepression,everybodyknewfromexperiencethattherewasnosuchthing.

Nevertheless,majorportionsof theTechnocracyplatformquietlymade theirwayintoRoosevelt’sNewDeal35andasWorldWarIIprogressed,theAmericanpublicquicklyforgotaboutTechnocracy,Inc.andHowardScott.DuringWWIIfrom1940-1943,Technocracy,Inc.wasbannedinCanadaduetoaccusationsofsubversive activity. As M. King Hubbert’s career advanced with major oilcompanies,hefounditinhisowninteresttoformallydisassociatehimselffromTechnocracy although he never renounced its principles. William Knightfollowedhis“messiah”untilhisdeath.ThecurrentofficesofTechnocracy,Inc.are located in the remote town of Ferndale, Washington state, where manyremaininghistoricaldocumentsarestored.AtColumbiaUniversity,however,theradicaltenetsofTechnocracycontinued

in the halls of academia. Columbia has always prided itself for academicinteractionamongprofessors,departmentsanddisciplines,andinteracttheydid.Some40yearslaterin1973,TechnocracywasdestinedtoreemergeatColumbiaunderanewname,anewsponsorshipandanexpandedstrategytodominatetheworldratherthanjusttheNorthAmericancontinent.Technocracy and the Third Reich In both ideology and practice,Technocracy foundbetter soil inNaziGermany than it did in theUnitedStates.At the time, theword“Technocracy”wasnotyetanathema to thenation’s press. For instance in 1933, the New York Times correctly tiedtogether Technocracy and Nazi leaders: A strong but non-imperialisticGermany rising to theheights of prosperity through theproperapplicationof

technocracywaspicturedtotheGermanmassesintheusualweek-endbarrageofspeechesbyNazileaderstoday.36[Emphasisadded]IthasbeennotedthatTechnocracyinAmericadidnotsucceedduetoalackof

a social strategy with which to implement itself. This was not the case inGermany where Technocracy had grown at the same pace and for the samereasonsasintheU.S.TheGermanindustrialmachinewaswellacquaintedwithTaylorism and the application of ScientificManagement. Engineering, scienceand research were highly esteemed as a gateway to future prosperity andstrength.GermanyfeltthepainoftheGreatDepressiontoaworsedegreethanthe U.S. because it had never fully recovered from the dislocations andconsequences ofWorldWar One. Thus, Germany was driven to excel in allareasofadvancement. Its technocraticmovement thathad started in the1920swasfullyassertingitselfbythetimeHitlerascendedtopower.Dr. Gottfried Feder, secretary to the Minister of the Economy, echoed

Technocraticthinkingina1933speechbeforetheNationalSocialistsofDanzig:Theliberalistic-capitalisticagelongagoexhaustedthepossibilityofconsumingproduction made possible by great technical developments. Thereupon manbecametheslaveofthemachine.Nationalsocialism,ontheotherhand,realizesthatmightytechnicaltasksandpossibilitieshaveremainedwhichcanbesolvedonly by the planned mobilization of technique for the battle againstunemployment… the wealth of every people is measured by its capacity toorganizeitsresources.37

An earlier New York Times article documented some similarities anddifferences between the German and American Technocracy movements:Germany has her own technocratic movement in the Technokratische Unionwithheadquarters inBerlin.Although ithas taken itsname from itsAmericancounterpart, it is not an offshoot of the latter but an indigenous growth.Nevertheless,Germantechnocracy,whichhasjusttakenorganizedform,agreeswiththeAmericanbrandonallbuttwomajorpoints.38

First,theGermansdidn’tbuyintoScott’ssystemofenergycredits,whichtheytermed “electric dollars”. Second, they stressed humanism as the religion oftechnocracy, whereas Scott wanted nothing to do with any kind of religion.However,thepointsofagreementarerevealing:“LiketheirAmericaneconomickin, they are against capitalism, against the profit systemand against the goldstandard.”39 These commonalities gave reason for more-than-casualcommunications between Scott and his German counterparts: The Germantechnocraticunion is in touchwithHowardScott inNewYorkanddreamsof

creating an international technocratic organization, which, indeed, its leadersdeemindispensableforrealizingthetechnocraticideal.40

Although therewas no internal recordofScott’s conversationswithGermantechnocrats,itisclearthattheyexisted.However,sincetheGermanswereproudinventors and rabid nationalists, extensive effort was expended to positionthemselves as the sole arbiters of rational Technocracy, even though theyworked in the mostly irrational system of National Socialism. The Germanversion needed to be sold to its citizens as “made-in-Germany”. The factsundermined the reality of the matter. Three years of the German journal ofTechnocracy, Technokratie, was surveyed and found to contain a heavyconcentrationoftranslatedreprintsfromTechnocracyjournalsinAmerica.41Asa submerged movement, Technocracy lived on in Germany, but as a publicmovement, it was summarily axed by the German government in 1935: Thejournal Technokratie and with it the German Technocratic Society came to asuddenendin1935,ironicallyjustwhenopportunitiesfortechnocratswithintheNationalist State began to improve. The Third Reich had room for individualtechnocrats,butnotforatechnocraticmovement.42

Thus, as in America, when themovement of Technocracy collided with theexistingpoliticalstructure,itwasrejected.IntheUnitedStates,itwasRooseveltandhisNewDeal,and inGermany itwasHitlerandNaziSocialism.PoliticalrejectionhadnoimpactonTechnocracybecausetechnocratsbelievedthattheirvisionof thefuturewasallbutguaranteed,regardlessofpolitical resistance.IfTechnocracy could be likened to a submarine, it simply closed the hatch andsubmergedinordertocontinueitsmissionunseenandundetected.Oftheformermembersoftheformalmovement,thereisnorecordofanyrepudiationoftheirtechnocratic ideology,methodologiesorpractices; theysimplycontinuedonasbefore,communicatinginprivatebutwithoutameetinghall.Renneberg and Walker’s detailed study on Technocracy and National

Socialismconcludedwiththisbluntstatement:Technocracy,liketechnology,isfundamentallyambivalentandprovedcompatiblewiththemostextremeaspectsof German Fascism. Without technocracy, the most barbaric, irrational andbackward-looking policies of the Third Reich, including, “euthanasia”,involuntary sterilization, the brutal repression of the Socialist movement,ruthless imperialism, ideological warfare on the Eastern front, genocide andeffortstocreatea“masterrace”wouldhavebeenimpossible.43

AfterGermany’sdefeat inWWII,manyof thedirectperpetratorsof“crimesagainsthumanity”werebrought to justiceduringthefamousNurembergtrials.

The Technocrats, however, as indirect enablers were not seen as ones whoshouldbeheldaccountableforanything,andindeed,theybecameanimportantpartofthewarreparationsprocessandwerecartedofftootherWesternnationsto resume their scientific and engineering duties in the service of othergovernments.Indeed,American technocrats and sympathizerswithin theU.S.Government

were quick to rescue andprovide cover for theirGerman counterparts.A top-secret program calledOperation Paperclip commenced in 1944 that sought tobringtopNaziscientiststoAmericaundersecretmilitarycontractswhilewhite-washing their past and high-ranking connections with Nazi Socialism. AnnieJacobson notes in her recent 575-page book on Operation Paperclip, Theprogramhadabenignpublicfaceandaclassifiedbodyofsecretsandlies.“I’mmadontechnology,”AdolfHitlertoldhisinnercircleatadinnerpartyin1942,and in the aftermath of the German surrender more than sixteen hundred ofHitler’stechnologistswouldbecomeAmerica’sown.44

ThesewerethesametechnologistswhoeagerlygaveHitleralmosttotalvictoryoverallofEurope!ThefamousrocketscientistWernhervonBraun,forinstance,wasaprominent

member of the Nazi party and also a member of Hitler’s SS. Under Hitler’scommand, he ran an underground slave labor facility where his rockets werebeingbuilt.After his relocation (alongwith othermembers of his engineeringteam) to the U.S. via Operation Paperclip, von Braun went on to design therockets that putAmerica’s spaceship on themoon, but not before becoming anaturalizedcitizenin1955.In another example, the inventor of the ear thermometer, Dr. Theodor H.

Benzinger,workedattheNavalMedicalResearchInstitutefrom1947to1970.Heultimatelyheld40patentsonhisinventions.WhenBenzingerpassedin1999attheageof94,hewaseulogizedinglowingtermsbytheNewYorkTimes,butnot one word was mentioned about the work he performed on concentrationcampprisonersinNaziGermanyduringWWII.In a more transparent setting, devoid of Operation Paperclip cloaking, both

men would have likely stood trial at Nuremberg with the rest of their warcriminalassociates.Instead,theEuropeanbrandofTechnocracyquietlymeldedbackintoitsAmericancounterpartandcontinuedonasifnothinghadhappened.

RebirthWhatever Technocracy represented in the 1930s and earlier, it was cleverly

regurgitatedinZbigniewBrzezinski’sbookBetweenTwoAges:America’sRoleintheTechnetronicEra.Thisbookwasnevera“bestseller”onanyliterarylist,but itwas thebook that caught the eye and admirationofDavidRockefeller.TheRockefellerdynasty,andDavidinparticular,hadalwayshadadifficulttimemaintaining good public relations with the American public. Collectively, theRockefellersrepresentedtheglobal-mindedEasternEstablishmentthatwasbenton selling American sovereignty to international interests. Simply put,Rockefellerneededayoungbloodacademic likeBrzezinski inorder to justifyhisownglobalistdreams.The fact thatBrzezinskiwas a professor atColumbiaUniversity opens up a

necessarysidenoteregardingtheconnectionbetweentheRockefellerfamilyandColumbia. In 1928, JohnD.Rockefeller, Jr. leased the ground to develop thefutureRockefellerCenterinNewYorkCity-fromColumbiaUniversity.Infact,Rockefeller tookona27year leasewith three21-yearoptions to renew, foratotal of 87 years lease. The lease was cut short in 1985 after 52 years whenColumbiaagreed tosell the11.7acresof landunder theRockefellerCenter totheRockefellerGroup fora tidyall-cashsumof$400million. Itwasa recordpriceforanysingleparceleversoldinNewYorkCity.Toputthiswindfallintoperspective, the totalvalueofColumbia’sexistingendowmentat the timewasreported to be only $683million.When adding to that sum 52 years of leasepayments,reportedtobe$11.1millionperyearin1973onward,theRockefellerclancanbeseenasamajorbenefactorofColumbiaUniversity,ifnotthemajorbenefactorinthe20thcentury.ButRockefeller family involvementwithColumbia predated theRockefeller

Center leasing arrangement by at least several years. In 1919, John D.RockefellerfinancedthebuildingofTeachersCollegeColumbiaUniversitywitha$1millionone-timegift,whichwasnotedatthetimeasbeingthelargestgiftevermadetoaninstitutionfortrainingteachers.45

Understanding these connections may explain why Rockefeller turned toColumbiawhenhepickedBrzezinskitobehisprincipalideologueforthenext40 plus years. It is inconceivable that both were unaware of the history ofTechnocracy at Columbia during the 1930s. In his book,Between Two Ages,Brzezinskiexpandedupon theoriginalTechnocracy thatwasoriginally limitedto the North American continent, to one of a global nature but with virtually

identicalends:[Thetechnetronicera]involvesthegradualappearanceofamorecontrolledanddirectedsociety.Suchasocietywouldbedominatedbyanelitewhoseclaimtopoliticalpowerwouldrestonallegedlysuperiorscientificknow-how.Unhinderedby the restraintsof traditional liberalvalues, thiselitewouldnothesitatetoachieveitspoliticalendsbyusingthelatestmoderntechniquesforinfluencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance andcontrol.46

BrzezinskigaveasuccinctbackgroundthatleduptohisTechnetronicEra.Hewrotethatmankindhadmovedthroughthreegreatstagesofevolutionandwasin the middle of the fourth and final stage. The first stage he described as“religious”,combiningaheavenly“universalismprovidedbytheacceptanceofthe idea that man’s destiny is essentially in God’s hands” with an earthly“narrownessderivedfrommassiveignorance,illiteracy,andavisionconfinedtotheimmediateenvironment.”47

Thesecondstagewasnationalism,stressingChristianequalitybeforethelaw,which“markedanothergiantstepintheprogressiveredefinitionofman’snatureandplaceinourworld.”ThethirdstagewasMarxism,which,saidBrzezinski,“representsafurthervitalandcreativestageinthematuringofman’suniversalvision.” The fourth and final stage was Brzezinski’s Technetronic Era, or the“ideal of rational humanism on a global scale - the result of American-Communistevolutionarytransformations.”48

Inconsideringourcurrentstructureofgovernance,Brzezinskistated,Tensionis unavoidable asman strives to assimilate the new into the frameworkof theold. For a time the established framework resiliently integrates the new byadapting it in a more familiar shape. But at some point the old frameworkbecomesoverloaded.Thenewerinputcannolongerberedefinedintotraditionalforms,andeventuallyitassertsitselfwithcompellingforce.Today,though,theoldframeworkofinternationalpolitics-withtheirspheresofinfluence,militaryalliances between nation-states, the fiction of sovereignty, doctrinal conflictsarising from nineteenth century crises - is clearly no longer compatible withreality.49

One of the most important “frameworks” in the world, and especially toAmericans, is theConstitution of theUnited States. Itwas this document thatoutlinedandenabledthemostprosperousnationinthehistoryoftheworld.Wasoursovereigntyreally“fiction”?WastheAmericanvisionnolongercompatiblewith reality? Brzezinski further stated, The approaching two-hundredthanniversary of the Declaration of Independence could justify the call for a

nationalconstitutionalconventiontoreexaminethenation’sformalinstitutionalframework. Either 1976 or 1989 - the two-hundredth anniversary of theConstitution - could serve as a suitable target date culminating a nationaldialogueontherelevanceofexistingarrangements....Realism,however,forcesustorecognizethatthenecessarypoliticalinnovationwillnotcomefromdirectconstitutional reform, desirable as that would be. The needed change ismorelikelytodevelopincrementallyandlessovertly...inkeepingwiththeAmericantraditionofblurringdistinctionsbetweenpublicandprivateinstitutions.50

InBrzezinski’sTechnetronicErathen,the“nation-stateasafundamentalunitof man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force:International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning intermsthatarefarinadvanceofthepoliticalconceptsofthenation-state.”51

Brzezinski’sphilosophyclearlypointedforwardtoRichardGardner’sHardRoadtoWorldOrder thatappearedinForeignAffairs in1974,whereGardnerstated, In short, the “house of world order” would have to be built from thebottom up rather than from the top down. Itwill look like a great “booming,buzzingconfusion”,touseWilliamJames’famousdescriptionofreality,butanendrunaroundnationalsovereignty,erodingitpiecebypiece,willaccomplishmuchmorethantheold-fashionedfrontalassault.52

Thatformerapproachwhichhadproducedfewsuccessesduringthe1950sand1960swasbeing tradedforavelvetsledge-hammer. Itwouldmake littlenoisebutwould still drive the spikes of globalization deep into the heart of nationsaround the world, including the United States. Indeed, the TrilateralCommission,jointlyestablishedbyBrzezinskiandRockefeller,wasthechosenvehicle that finally got the necessary traction to actually create their NewInternationalEconomicOrder.Inover40yearssincethefoundingoftheTrilateralCommission,thehistorical

record clearly testifies to its success. The applied doctrines of Agenda 21,Sustainable Development and the energy Smart Grid that have resulted fromTrilateral interactions testify to their ideological grounding in historicTechnocracy.

15WilliamE.Akin,TechnocracyandtheAmericanDream,(UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1977),p.112.16Galton,Francis,“Eugenics:ItsDefinition,Scope,andAims”,AmericanJournalofSociology,(July1904).17FredericTaylor,PrinciplesofScientificManagement,(Harper&Brothers,1911).18Akin,p.1019ThorsteinVeblen,EngineersandthePriceSystem,(BWHuebsch,1921),pp.120-121.20MichaelRosenthal,NicholasMiraculous:TheAmazingCareeroftheRedoubtableDr.NicholasMurrayButler(Farrar,StrausandGiroux,2006),p.422.21“NoGovernment,NoPoliticians,NoTaxes”,TheMontrealGazette,Sept.14,1974.

22NewYorkTimes,March5,1933.23HarryA.Porter,RooseveltandTechnocracy,(WetzelPublishingCompany,1932)Forewardiii.24ibid.,p.6325Note:TheTechnocracyStudyCourseisreadilyavailableontheInternetinascannedformat.26ScottandHubbard,TechnocracyStudyCourse,(Technocracy,Inc.,1934),p.vii.27Ibid.,p.x.28Ibid.,p.232.29Ibid.,p.240.30Porter,RooseveltandTechnocracy,(WetzelPublishingCompany,1932).31“WhatIsTechnocracy?”,TheTechnocrat,Vol.3,No.4,1938.32RoutledgeandPaul,TheRiseoftheTechnocrats:ASocialHistory,(W.H.G.Armytage,1965,1965,)p.238.33PatrickGlennZander,Rightmoderntechnology,nation,andBritain’sextremerightintheinterwarperiod(1919--1940),(ProquestUMI,2009),p.83.34Aiken,p.111.35Armytage,p.240.36“HitlerDemandsTroopsLeadReich,”TheNewYorkTimes,August21,1933.37Ibid.38“GermansModifyOurTechnocracy,”TheNewYorkTimes,January22,1933.39Ibid.40Ibid.41MonikaRennebergandMarkWalker,Scientists,engineersandNationalSocialism,Science,TechnologyandNationalSocialism(CambridgeUniversityPress,1994),p.5.42Ibid.43Ibid.,p.11.44AnnieJacobsen,OperationPaperclip,(LittleBrown&Co.,2014).45“RockefellerGiftsTotal$530,853,632”,NewYorkTimes,May24,1937.46ZbigniewBrzezinski,BetweenTwoAges:America’sRoleintheTechnetronicEra,(VikingPress,1970),p97.47Ibid.48Ibid.,p.246.49Ibid.50Ibid.51Ibid.52RichardGardner,“TheHardRoadtoWorldOrder”,ForeignAffairs,(1974),p.558.

CHAPTER3

THETRILATERALCOMMISSIONPRESIDENTREAGANULTIMATELYCAMETOUNDERSTANDTRILATERAL’SVALUEANDINVITEDTHEENTIREMEMBERSHIPTOARECEPTIONATTHEWHITE

HOUSEINAPRIL1984-DAVIDROCKEFELLER,MEMOIRS,200252

MFirstSignsofConcern

y interest in the Trilateral Commission started soon after thepresidential election of Jimmy Carter53 andWalterMondale. As a

youngfinancialanalystandwriter,IcarefullyfollowedCarter’sinitialroundofappointeestothetoppositionsinhiscabinetandotherimportantposts.Afterall,Carterhadmadeabigcampaignpitchaboutbeingan“establishmentoutsider”withfewcontactswithintheBeltway.Whowouldhebringtothetable?Asthelistofappointeespiledup,InoticedthatseveralweremembersintheTrilateralCommission, whatever that was, and my curiosity was immediately peaked.Afterdiggingupand sifting througha list ofTrilateralCommissionmembers,and seeing over a dozenTrilateral appointees, it became immediately obviousthatsomesortofcoupwasunderway,butwhat?Itwas about this time thatAntonyC.Sutton enteredmy life.Webothwere

attendingoneofthefirstmajorgoldconferencesinNewOrleanswherehehadbeen invited to speak about his new book, TheWar on Gold. The hotel wasprobablytoosmallforthesizeoftheconferencebecauseeveryareawaspackedwithpeople, including the in-hotel coffee shopwherewehad to eatbreakfast.BythetimeIarrivedattherestaurant,therewerenoemptytablestobefound.ThehosttoldmethatifIwantedtoeat,hewouldhavetoseatmeanywherehecouldfindanopenseatatatable.Reluctantly,Ifollowedhimtoasmallboothwhereacompletestrangerwasalreadyhalfwaythroughhismeal.Ihadnoideawhothispersonwasandprobablydidn’tcaretoomuchbecauseI

was very hungry and anxious to get off to the first presentation. When weintroduced ourselves with small talk, I was immediately taken by his Britishaccentandgenteelmannerismsandfoundhimquiteeasytotalkto.WithinafewminutesI learnedthathewasaneconomicsprofessorandresearchfellowwhohad just been forced out of The Hoover Institution for War, Peace andRevolutionatStanfordUniversity.HewasclearlyshakenbecauseacademiawashislifeandStanfordwashispublisher;afterall,theyhadalreadypublishedhismonumental and internationally acclaimed serieson the transfer of technologyfrom theWest to theEast. I later learned thatwhenSuttonwas on a research“hunt”,heneverleftasinglestoneunturned.Infact,hisco-scholarsatHooverjokingly called him the “Hoover vacuum cleaner” because of his voraciousappetitefordetails.WhenSuttontoldmethathewasforcedoutofHooverbyDavidPackard,the

president of Stanford, I immediately remembered seeing his (Packard’s) name

onthemembershiplistoftheTrilateralCommission.Packardwasalsofounderand chairman of Hewlett-Packard. Apparently, Sutton’s professional researchhadbeguntofocusonthisgroupofpeople,manyofwhomhehadresearchedinotherstudyprojects.Likeme,healsobegantowonderwhytheywerepoppingupallovertheCarterAdministration.Inanycase,Packardapparentlydecidedtoshutdownthe“vacuumcleaner”beforehegotanyfurtherinhisresearch.Whenbothofusrealizedthatweweretrackingthesamegroupofelitists,even

if from different backgrounds, our conversation immediately became intense.Bothofusfinishedbreakfastandwerestill talkinguntilothersletusknowwehad the table toourselves longenough,butnotbeforewe shookhandson thevery pressing need to collaborate on getting out the story of the TrilateralCommission. Within weeks we started a monthly newsletter, TrilateralObserver, in order to release the initial results of our research as quickly andsmoothly as possible. After two years, we used this material to compile andpublish two books, Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II. As morepeople read our material, we began to get requests for radio and televisioninterviews.BeforeCarter’stermwascompleted,wehadappearedonwellover350radioprogramsalloverthecountry.The crowningmedia event was my appearance on the Larry King Show in

Washington,DC,wherehewasalate-nighthostforthelargestradionetworkinthe nation, Mutual Broadcasting. In fact, I sat across the table fromCharlesHeck,whowastheExecutiveDirectoroftheTrilateralCommissionatthetime.What was supposed to be a one-hour point-counterpoint debate with Heckstretched into a three-hour marathon. To Larry King’s astonishment, theswitchboardswerelitupandthecallerswereangrilyattackingMr.Heckasheshared what the Commission was attempting to do. Since most callers didn’thavetheirfactsstraight,Iwasabletogentlycorrectthemandlayouttheactualrecord, with direct quotes from Trilaterals themselves and their Trilateralpublications.Although I endedupdefendingHeck frombeingmisrepresented,myfactualmaterialmadehim lookall theworseand thenext roundofcallerswereevenmoreangry.Whentheshowended,LarryKingthankedusandshookhishead,genuinelyastounded,andexclaimed,“Ihaveneverseenanythinglikethisinmylife.”Thenextday,IreceivedafranticcallfromB.DaltonBooksellerssayingthat

they were getting calls from all over the country requesting Trilaterals OverWashingtonandcouldIpleaseexpressacoupleofreviewcopiestothemsothattheycouldassemble their first stockingorder.Well, I sent thebooks,but they

nevercalledbackandanordernevermaterialized;infact,uponcallingseveralB.Daltonstoresacrossthecountry,SuttonandIheardrepeatedlythatthebookwasoutofprintandthepublisherwasoutofbusiness.Really?Yes,wehadbeenblacklistedbyoneof the largestbooksellingchains in the

nation! Upon further investigation, we discovered a close connection to amember of the Trilateral Commission sitting on the board of directors of B.Dalton’sparentcompany,DaytonHudson,whichisnowTarget.WealsoneverheardanotherpeepoutofLarryKingorMutualBroadcastingRadio.

TrilateralBasicsTheideatocreatetheTrilateralCommissionwasfirstinformallypresentedto

people at the elitist Bilderberg group meeting in Europe in 1972, by DavidRockefeller andZbigniewBrzezinski.Theyhad flown there together for justthat purpose, and because they were encouraged by so many of their elitistbrethren,theyreturnedtotheU.S.andformedtheCommissionin1973.According to each issue of the official Trilateral Commission quarterly

magazineTrialogue,TheTrilateralCommissionwasformedin1973byprivatecitizens of Western Europe, Japan and North America to foster closercooperation among these three regions on common problems. It seeks toimprove public understanding of such problems, to support proposals forhandling them jointly, and to nurture habits and practices ofworking togetheramongtheseregions.54

Further,Trialogue and other officialwritingsmade clear their stated goal ofcreatinga“NewInternationalEconomicOrder”.PresidentGeorgeH.W.Bushlater talked openly about creating a “New World Order”, which has sincebecomeasynonymousphrase.Rockefeller was chairman of the ultra-powerful Chase Manhattan Bank, a

directorofmanymajormultinationalcorporationsand“endowmentfunds”andhad long been a central figure in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).Brzezinski, a brilliant strategist for one-world idealism, was a professor atColumbiaUniversityandtheauthorofseveralbooksthathaveservedas“policyguidelines” for the Trilateral Commission. Brzezinski served as theCommission’sfirstexecutivedirectorfromitsinceptionin1973untillate1976whenhewasappointedbyPresidentJimmyCarterasAssistanttothePresidentforNationalSecurityAffairs.TheinitialCommissionmembershipconsistedofapproximatelythreehundred

people,withroughlyonehundredeachfromEurope,JapanandNorthAmerica.Membership was also roughly divided among academics, politicians andcorporatemagnates; these included international bankers, leaders of prominentlaborunionsandcorporatedirectorsofmediagiants.The word “commission” was puzzling since it is usually associated with

instrumentalities set up by governments. It seemed out of place for a privategroupunlesswecoulddeterminethatitreallywasanarmofagovernment,anunseengovernment,different from thevisiblegovernment inWashington.Theinclusion of European and Japanese members indicated a global government

rather than a national government. We hoped that the concept of a sub-rosaworld government was just wishful thinking on the part of the TrilateralCommissioners.Thefacts,however,linedupquitepessimistically.It is important to note that Brzezinski andRockefeller did not initially seek

advice from the Council on Foreign Relations but rather from the globalBilderberg group. If the Council on Foreign Relations could be said to be aspawning ground for many of the concepts of one-world idealism, then theTrilateralCommissionwasthe“taskforce”assembledtoassaultthebeachhead.AlreadytheCommissionhadplaceditsmembersinthetoppoststheU.S.hadtooffer.PresidentJamesEarlCarter,theGeorgiapeanutfarmerturnedpoliticianwho

promised, “I will never lie to you,” was chosen to join the Commission byBrzezinski in 1973. It was Brzezinski, in fact, who first identified Carter aspresidentialtimber,andsubsequentlyeducatedhimineconomics,foreignpolicy,and the ins-and-outs of world politics. Upon Carter’s election, his firstappointmentplacedBrzezinskiasassistanttothepresidentfornationalsecuritymatters. More commonly, he was called the head of the National SecurityCouncilbecauseheansweredonlytothepresident;somerightlysaidBrzezinskiheldthesecondmostpowerfulpositionintheU.S.Carter’s running mate, Walter Mondale, was also a member of the

Commission.OnJanuary7,1977TimeMagazine,whoseeditor-in-chief,HedleyDonovan

was a powerful Trilateral, named President Carter “Man of the Year”. Thesixteen-pagearticleinthatissuenotonlyfailedtomentionCarter’sconnectionwiththeTrilateralCommissionbutalsostatedthefollowing:AshesearchedforCabinet appointees, Carter seemed at times hesitant and frustrateddisconcertingly out of character.His lack of ties toWashington and the PartyEstablishment - qualities that helped raise him to the White House - carrypotentialdangers.HedoesnotknowtheFederalGovernmentorthepressuresitcreates.Hedoesnotreallyknowthepoliticianswhomhewillneedtohelphimrunthecountry.55

WasthisportraitofCarterasapolitical innocentsimply inaccurateorwas itdeliberately misleading? By December 25, 1976, two weeks before the Timearticle appeared, Carter had already chosen his cabinet. Three of his cabinetmembers, Cyrus Vance, Michael Blumenthal, and Harold Brown, wereTrilateral Commissioners and the other non-Commission members were notunsympathetic to Commission objectives and operations. In total, Carter

appointed no fewer than twenty Trilateral Commissioners to top governmentposts,including:

ZbigniewBrzezinski-NationalSecurityAdvisorCyrusVance-SecretaryofStateHaroldBrown-SecretaryofDefenseW.MichaelBlumenthal-SecretaryoftheTreasuryWarrenChristopher-DeputySecretaryofStateLucyWilsonBenson-UnderSecretaryofStateforSecurityAffairsRichardCooper-UnderSecretaryofStateforEconomicAffairsRichardHolbrooke - Under Secretary of State for East Asian andPacificAffairsSolLinowitz-co-negotiatoronthePanamaCanalTreatyGerald Smith - Ambassador-at-Large for Nuclear PowerNegotiationsElliottRichardson-DelegatetotheLawoftheSeaConferenceRichardGardner-AmbassadortoItalyAnthony Solomon -Under Secretary of the Treasury forMonetaryAffairsPaulWarnke-Director,ArmsControlandDisarmamentAgencyRobert R. Bowie - Deputy Director of Intelligence For NationalEstimatesC.FredBergsten-UnderSecretaryofTreasuryJamesSchlesinger-SecretaryofEnergyElliotRichardson-DelegatetoLawoftheSeaLeonardWoodcock-ChiefenvoytoChinaAndrewYoung-AmbassadortotheUnitedNations

When you include Carter and Mondale, these Commission membersrepresented almost one-third of the entiremembership from theUnited Statesroster.Was there even the slightest evidence to indicate anything other than

collusion?Hardly!ZbigniewBrzezinskispelledoutthequalificationsofa1976presidential winner in 1973: The Democratic candidate in 1976 will have toemphasize work, the family, religion and, increasingly, patriotism....The newconservatismwillclearlynotgobacktolaissezfaire.Itwillbeaphilosophical

conservatism.Itwillbeakindofconservativestatismormanagerism.Therewillbe conservative values but a reliance on a great deal of co-determinationbetweenstateandthecorporations.56

OnMay23, 1976 journalistLeslieH.Gelbwrote in the not-so-conservativeNew York Times, “[Brzezinski] was the first guy in the Community to payattention toCarter, to takehim seriously.He spent timewithCarter, talked tohim, sent himbooks and articles, educated him.”57RichardGardner (also ofColumbia University) joined into the “educational” task, and as Gelb noted,between the two of them they had Carter virtually to themselves. Gelbcontinued: “While the Community as a whole was looking elsewhere, toSenatorsKennedyandMondale...itpaidoff.Brzezinski,withGardner,wasnowtheleadingmanonCarter’sforeignpolicytaskforce.”58

AlthoughRichardGardnerwasofconsiderableacademicinfluence,itshouldbeclear thatBrzezinskiwas the“guiding light”of foreignpolicy in theCarteradministration. Along with Commissioner Vance and a host of otherCommissionersintheStateDepartment,Brzezinskihadmorethancontinuedthepoliciesofbefriendingourenemiesandalienatingourfriends.Sinceearly1977we had witnessed a massive push to attain “normalized” relations withCommunist China, Cuba, the USSR, Eastern European nations, Angola, etc.Conversely, we had withdrawn at least some support fromNationalist China,SouthAfrica,Zimbabwe(formerlyRhodesia),etc.Itwasnotjustatrend:Itwasanepidemic.Needed: A More Just and Equitable World Order The TrilateralCommissionheldtheirannualplenarymeetinginTokyo,Japan,inJanuary1977.CarterandBrzezinskiobviouslycouldnotattendastheywerestillinthe process of reorganizing theWhiteHouse.They did, however, addresspersonal letters to the meeting, which were reprinted in Trialogue, theofficialmagazine of theCommission: It givesme special pleasure to sendgreetings toallofyougathering for theTrilateralCommissionmeeting inTokyo. I have warm memories of our meeting in Tokyo some eighteenmonthsago,andamsorryIcannotbewithyounow.MyactiveserviceontheCommissionsinceitsinceptionin1973hasbeenasplendidexperienceforme,anditprovidedmewithexcellentopportunitiestocometoknowleadersinourthreeregions.As I emphasized inmy campaign, a strong partnership among us is of thegreatestimportance.Weshareeconomic,politicalandsecurityconcernsthat

make it logical we should seek ever-increasing cooperation andunderstanding. And this cooperation is essential not only for our threeregions,butintheglobalsearchforamorejustandequitableworldorder.IhopetoseeyouontheoccasionofyournextmeetinginWashington,andIlookforwardtoreceivingreportsonyourworkinTokyo.JimmyCarter59

Brzezinski’s letter, in a similar vein, follows: The Trilateral Commission hasmeant a great deal tome over the last fewyears. It has been the stimulus forintellectualcreativityandasourceofpersonalsatisfaction.Ihaveformedcloseties with new friends and colleagues in all three regions, ties which I valuehighlyandwhichIamsurewillcontinue.I remain convinced that, on the larger architectural issues of today,collaboration among our regions is of the utmost necessity. Thiscollaboration must be dedicated to the fashioning of a more just andequitableworldorder.Thiswillrequireaprolongedprocess,butIthinkwecan look forwardwith confidence and take some pride in the contributionwhichtheCommissionismaking.ZbigniewBrzezinski60

Thekeyphraseinbothletterswas“morejustandequitableworldorder”.Didthisemphasisindicatethatsomethingwaswrongwithourpresentworldorder,that is, with national structures? Yes, according to Brzezinski, and since thepresent“framework”wasinadequatetohandleworldproblems,itmustbedoneawaywithandsupplantedwithasystemofglobalgovernance.In September 1974, Brzezinski was asked in an interview by the Brazilian

newspaperVeja, “Howwould you define thisNewWorldOrder?”Brzezinskianswered:When I speak of the present international system I am referring torelationsinspecificfields,mostofallamongtheAtlanticcountries:commercial,military, mutual security relations, involving the international monetary fund,NATOetc.Weneed tochange the international systemforaglobal system inwhichnew,activeandcreativeforcesrecentlydeveloped-shouldbeintegrated.ThissystemneedstoincludeJapan,Brazil,theoilproducingcountries,andeventheUSSR, to the extentwhich the Soviet Union is willing to participate in aglobalsystem.61

When asked if Congresswould have an expanded or diminished role in thenew system, Brzezinski declared, “the reality of our times is that a modernsocietysuchastheU.S.needsacentralcoordinatingandrenovatingorganwhich

cannotbemadeupofsixhundredpeople.”62

UnderstandingthephilosophyoftheTrilateralCommissionwasandistheonlywaytoreconcilethemyriadofapparentcontradictionsintheinformationfilteredthroughthenationalpress.For instance,howwas it that theMarxist regimeinAngola derived the great bulk of its foreign exchange from the offshore oiloperations of Gulf Oil Corporation? Why did Andrew Young insist that“Communismhasneverbeena threat toBlacks inAfrica”?Whydid theU.S.funnelbillionsintechnologicalaidtotheSovietUnionandCommunistChina?WhydidtheU.S.apparentlyhelpitsenemieswhilechastisingitsfriends?A similar and perplexing question is asked bymillions ofAmericans today:

Why dowe spend trillions on the “War on Terror” around theworld and yetignoretheMexican/U.S.borderandthetensof thousandsof illegalalienswhofreely enter theU.S. each and everymonth?These “illegals” includenot onlyMexicans, but many other nationalities from Central and South America andfromMideastcountries.Thesequestions,andhundredsofotherslikethem,cannotbeexplainedinany

otherway:TheU.S.ExecutiveBranchwasnotanti-Marxistoranti-Communist;ithastreadonthesteppingstonesofMarxismasitmarchedtowardBrzezinski’sTechnetronicEra.Inotherwords,thoseidealswhichledtotheheinousabusesofHitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mussolini were now being accepted as necessaryinevitabilitybyourelectedandappointedleaders.This hardly suggests the Great American Dream. It is very doubtful that

AmericanswouldagreewithBrzezinskior theTrilateralCommission. It is theAmerican publicwho is paying the price, suffering the consequences, but notunderstandingthetruenatureofthesituation.Thisnature, however,wasnot unknownorunknowable. Itwasnever secret,

per se.SenatorBarryGoldwater (R-AZ) issueda clear andprecisewarning inhis1979book,WithNoApologies:TheTrilateralCommission is internationaland is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of thecommercialandbankinginterestsbyseizingcontrolofthepoliticalgovernmentof the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful,coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power -political,monetary,intellectualandecclesiastical.63

FollowtheMoney,FollowthePowerWhatwastheeconomicnatureofthedriving force within the Trilateral Commission? It was the giantmultinational corporations - those with Trilateral representation - which

consistently benefited from Trilateral policy and actions. PolishedacademicssuchasBrzezinski,Gardner,Allison,McCracken,HenryOwenetc., servedonly to give “philosophical” justification to the exploitationoftheworld.Don’t underestimate their power or the distance they had already come by

1976. Their economic base was already established. Giants like Coca-Cola,IBM,CBS,CaterpillarTractor,BankofAmerica,ChaseManhattanBank,Deere&Company,Exxon,andothersvirtuallydwarfwhatever remainsofAmericanbusinesses. Themarket value of IBM’s stock alone, for instance, was greaterthan the value of all the stocks on the American Stock Exchange. ChaseManhattan Bank had some fifty thousand branches or correspondent banksthroughouttheworld.WhatreachedoureyesandearswashighlyregulatedbyCBS,theNewYorkTimes,TimeMagazine,etc.Themostimportantthingofallistorememberthatthepoliticalcoupdegrâce

precededtheeconomiccoupdegrâce.ThedominationoftheExecutiveBranchof theU.S.governmentprovidedall thenecessarypolitical leverageneeded toskewU.S.andglobaleconomicpoliciestotheirownbenefit.By1977,theTrilateralCommissionhadnotablybecomeexpertatusingcrises

tomanage countries toward theNewWorldOrder; yet, they foundmenacingbacklashesfromthoseverycrisesthattheytriedtomanipulate.In the end, the biggest crisis of all was that of the American way of life.

Americans never counted on such powerful and influential groups workingagainst theConstitution and freedom, either inadvertentlyor purposefully, andeven now, the principles that helped to build this great country are all butreducedtothesoundofmeaninglessbabbling.TrilateralEntrenchment:1980-2007ItwouldhavebeendamagingenoughiftheTrilateraldominationoftheCarter

administrationwasmerelyaone-timeanomaly,butitwasnot!SubsequentpresidentialelectionsbroughtGeorgeH.W.Bush(underReagan),

WilliamJeffersonClinton,AlbertGore andRichardCheney (underG.W.Bush)topower.Thus, every Administration since Carter has had top-level Trilateral

CommissionrepresentationthroughthePresidentorVice-president,orboth!ItisimportanttonotethatTrilateralhegemonyhastranscendedpoliticalparties;theyhavedominated-andcontinuetodominate-boththeRepublicanandDemocratpartieswithequalaplomb.

Inaddition, theAdministrationbeforeCarterwasvery friendlyanduseful toTrilateraldoctrineaswell;PresidentGeraldFord took the reinsafterPresidentRichard Nixon resigned and then appointed Nelson Rockefeller as his VicePresident. Neither Ford nor Rockefeller were members of the TrilateralCommission,butNelsonwasDavidRockefeller’sbrotherandthatsaysenough.According to Nelson Rockefeller’s memoirs, he originally introduced then-governorJimmyCartertoDavidandBrzezinski.HowhastheTrilateralCommissionorchestratedtheirgoalofcreatingaNew

InternationalEconomicOrder?Mostnotably,theyseatedtheirownmembersatthetopoftheinstitutionsofglobaltrade,globalbankingandforeignpolicy.For instance, theWorldBank is one of themost criticalmechanisms in the

engine of globalization.64 Since the founding of the Trilateral Commission in1973, there have been only sevenWorld Bank presidents, all of whom wereappointedbythePresident.Oftheseeight,sixwerepulledfromtheranksoftheTrilateralCommission!RobertMcNamara(1968-1981)A.W.Clausen(1981-1986)BarberConable(1986-1991) Lewis Preston (1991-1995) JamesWolfenson (1995-2005)PaulWolfowitz (2005-2007)Robert Zoellick (2007-2012) Jim Yong Kim (2012-Present) Another good evidence of domination is the position of U.S. TradeRepresentative (USTR), which is critically involved in negotiating the manyinternationaltradetreatiesandagreementsthathavebeennecessarytocreatetheNewInternationalEconomicOrder.Since1977,therehavebeentwelveUSTRsappointed by the President. Nine have been members of the TrilateralCommission!RobertS.Strauss (1977-1979)ReubinO’D.Askew (1979-1981)WilliamE.BrockIII (1981-1985)ClaytonK.Yeutter (1985-1989)CarlaA.Hills (1989-1993)MickeyKantor(1993-1997)CharleneBarshefsky(1997-2001)RobertZoellick (2001-2005) Rob Portman (2005-2006) Susan Schwab (2006-2009)RonKirk(2009-2013)MichaelFroman (2013-Present)This isnot tosay thatClaytonYeuter,RobPortmanandRonKirkwerenotfriendlytoTrilateralgoalsbecause they clearly were, and each had significant involvement with otherTrilateralmembersinthepast.TheSecretaryofStatecabinetpositionhasseenitsshareofTrilateralsaswell:

Henry Kissinger (Nixon, Ford), Cyrus Vance (Carter), Alexander Haig(Reagan),George Shultz (Reagan), Lawrence Eagleburger (G.H.W. Bush),WarrenChristopher (Clinton)andMadeleineAlbright (Clinton)Therewere

some Acting Secretaries of State that are also noteworthy: Philip Habib(Carter), Michael Armacost (G.H.W. Bush), Arnold Kantor (Clinton),RichardCooper (Clinton). Hillary Clinton (Obama)was not a Trilateral, butherhusband,WilliamClinton,was.Lastly, it should be noted that the Federal Reserve has likewise been

dominated by Trilaterals: Arthur Burns (1970-1978), Paul Volker (1979-1987),AlanGreenspan(1987-2006).WhiletheFederalReserveisaprivately-owned corporation, the President “chooses” the Chairman to a perpetualappointment.ThemorerecentheadsoftheFederalReserve,BenBernankeandJanet Yelen, are not members of the Trilateral Commission, but they clearlyfollowedthesameglobalistpoliciesastheirpredecessors.The point raised here is that Trilateral domination over the U.S. Executive

Branch has not only continued but has been strengthened from 1976 to thepresent.Thepatternhasbeendeliberateandpersistent:AppointmembersoftheTrilateralCommission to criticalpositionsofpower so that theycancarryoutTrilateralpolicies.Thequestionisandhasalwaysbeen,dothesepoliciesoriginateinconsensus

meetingsoftheTrilateralCommissionwheretwo-thirdsofthemembersarenotU.S.citizens?Theanswerisalltooobvious.Trilateral-friendly defenders attempt to sweep criticism aside by suggesting

that membership in the Trilateral Commission is incidental and that it onlydemonstratestheotherwisehighqualityofappointees.Arewetobelievethatinacountryof317millionpeopleonlythese100orsoarequalifiedtoholdsuchcriticalpositions?Again,theanswerisalltooobvious.WhereDoestheCouncilonForeignRelationsFit?WhilevirtuallyallTrilateralCommissionmembersfromNorthAmericahave

alsobeenmembersoftheCFR,thereverseiscertainlynottrue.Itisnaturaltoover-criticizetheCFRbecausemostof itsmembersseemtofill thebalanceofgovernmentpositionsnotalreadyfilledbyTrilaterals.The power structure of the Council is seen in the makeup of its board of

directors: No less than 44 percent (12 out of 27) are members of theCommission!IfdirectorparticipationreflectedonlythegeneralmembershipoftheCFR,thenonly3-4percentoftheboardwouldbeTrilaterals.65

Further, the president of the CFR isRichard N. Haass, a very prominentTrilateralmemberwhoalsoservedasDirectorofPolicyPlanning for theU.S.DepartmentofStatefrom2001-2003.

TrilateralinfluencecaneasilybeseeninpolicypapersproducedbytheCFRinsupportofTrilateralgoals.Forinstance,the2005CFRtaskforcereportontheFutureofNorthAmerica

wasperhapsthemajorTrilateralpolicystatementontheintendedcreationoftheNorthAmericanUnion.Vice-chair of the task forcewasDr.RobertA.Pastorwho emerged as the “Father of the North American Union” and was directlyinvolved inTrilateral operations since the 1970s.While theCFR claimed thatthe task forcewas “independent”, careful inspection of those appointed revealthatthreeTrilateralswerecarefullychosentooverseetheTrilateralposition,oneeach from Mexico, Canada and the United States: Luis Rubio,Wendy K.DobsonandCarlaA.Hills, respectively.66Hillshasbeenwidelyhailedas theprincipalarchitectoftheNorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreement(NAFTA)thatwasnegotiatedunderPresidentGeorgeH.W.Bushin1992.The bottom line is that the Council on Foreign Relations, thoroughly

dominatedbyTrilaterals, serves the interestsof theTrilateralCommissionandnottheotherwayaround!Trilateral Globalization in Europe The content of this chapter thus farsuggeststiesbetweentheTrilateralCommissionandtheUnitedStates.ThisisnotintendedtomeanthatTrilateralsarenotactiveinothercountriesaswell.RecallingtheearlyyearsoftheCommission,DavidRockefellerwrotein1998,BackintheearlySeventies, thehopeforamoreunitedEUROPEwas already full-blown - thanks in many ways to the individual energiespreviously spent by so many of the Trilateral Commission’s earliestmembers.67[Capitalsinoriginal]Thus, since 1973 and in parallel with their U.S. hegemony, the European

membersof theTrilateralCommissionwerebusycreatingtheEuropeanUnion(EU). In fact, the EU’s Constitution was authored by Commission memberValery Giscard d’Estaing in 2002-2003 when he was President of theConventionontheFutureofEurope.The steps that led to the creation of the EuropeanUnion are unsurprisingly

similar to thestepsbeing taken tocreate theNorthAmericanUnion today.Aswith theEU, lies,deceit andconfusionare theprincipal toolsused tokeepanunsuspecting citizenry in the dark while they forge ahead without mandate,accountabilityoroversight.Case Study: NAFTA Explained It is necessary to have a practicalunderstandingofthemethodsusedbytheTrilateralCommissiontoachieve

theirNewInternationalEconomicOrder.Tothisend,ourdiscussionmustdigress to the topic of trade treaties, agreements and regulations, andexactlyhowtheyhavebeenusedagainstus.Asboringasthatmaysound,itactually provides all the elements of a made-for-TV drama: Collusion,secrecy,manipulationanddeceit.Onemustusedetective-likeskillstograspthe modus operandi. As you discover how the game works, you willunderstandeverycurrentandfutureplotaswell.Youwillalsounderstandwhy nine out twelve U.S. Trade Representatives, who lead the tradenegotiations,haveallbeenmembersoftheTrilateralCommission.In Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, authority is granted to

Congress “To regulate commerce with foreign nations.” An effective end-runaround this insurmountable obstacle would be to convince Congress tovoluntarily turnover thispower to thePresident.With suchauthority inhand,the President could freely negotiate treaties and other trade agreements withforeign nations and then simply present them toCongress for a straight up ordown vote requiring only a simple 51 percentmajority instead of 66 percent,withnoamendmentspossible.ThisagainpointsoutelitedisdainforaCongressthat is elected to be representative “of the people, by the people and for thepeople.”The first so-called “Fast Track” legislation (officially known as Trade

PromotionAuthority)waspassedbyCongress in1974, justoneyear after thefounding of the Trilateral Commission. It was the same year that NelsonRockefeller was confirmed as Vice President under President Gerald Ford,neither ofwhomwere elected by theU.S. Public; Ford had becomePresidentafter the resignation ofRichardNixon.AsVice-President,NelsonRockefellerwas,accordingtotheConstitution,seatedasthepresidentoftheU.S.Senate.AccordingtoPublicCitizen,thebottomlineofFastTrackisthat…theWhite

HousesignsandentersintotradedealsbeforeCongressevervotesonthem.FastTrackalsosetstheparametersforcongressionaldebateonanytrademeasurethePresident submits, requiring a votewithin a certain timewith no amendmentsandonly20hoursofdebate.68

WhenanagreementisabouttobegiventoCongress,high-poweredlobbyistsandpoliticalhammer-headsarecalledintomanipulatecongressionalhold-outsinto voting for the legislation.With only 20 hours of debate allowed, there islittleopportunityforpublicinvolvement.The Council of the Americas, founded by David Rockefeller (Nelson

Rockefeller’sbrother)in1965,playedaninstrumentalpartinthepassageofthis

1974legislation.AccordingtoRockefellerhimself,TheCounciloftheAmericasplayedanintegralroleintheultimatelysuccessfuleffort tosecureTPA(TradePromotionAuthority)… theCouncil lobbiedhard for the legislation.Althoughthevote in theHousewas extremely close (215 ayes to214nays), theSenatepassedTPAmoreeasily.69

WithNelsonRockefellerpresidingasPresidentoftheSenate,itislittlewonderthatitpassedtherewithease.Nevertheless,CongressclearlyunderstoodtheriskofgivingupthispowertothePresident,asevidencedbythefactthattheyputanautomaticexpirationdateonit.Since theexpirationof theoriginalFastTrack,there has been a very contentious trail ofFastTrack renewal efforts. In 1996,PresidentClinton utterly failed to re-secure Fast Track after a bitter debate inCongress.Afteranothercontentiousstrugglein2001/2002,PresidentBushwasable to renewFastTrack forhimself in theTradeActof2002, just in time tonegotiate theCentralAmericanFreeTradeAgreement(CAFTA)andinsure itspassagein2005.It is startling to realize that since1974,FastTrackhasbeenused in a small

minorityoftradeagreements.UndertheClintonpresidency,forinstance,some300 separate trade agreements were negotiated and passed normally byCongress,butonlytwoofthemweresubmittedunderFastTrack:NAFTAandtheGATTUruguayRound. In fact, from1974 to 1992, therewere only threeinstancesofFastTrack inaction:GATTTokyoRound,U.S.-IsraelFreeTradeAgreementandtheCanada-U.S.FreeTradeAgreement.Thus,NAFTAwasonlythefourthinvocationofFastTrackupuntilthattime.SoonafterNAFTA,ClintonusedFastTrackauthoritytosubmittheUruguay

RoundAgreementsAct,whichwaspassedbytheSenateonDecember1,1994and signed into law on December 8. This sweeping treaty provided for thecreation of the World Trade Organization which has been instrumental inreforminginternationaltrade.SubsequentannualWTOmeetingstypicallymadeheadlinesnotbecauseoftheirdisastroustradepoliciesbutbecauseoftheviolentstreetprotestsstagedbyactivistsfromallovertheworld.The selective use of Fast Track legislation suggests a very narrow agenda.

Thesetradebamboozlesdidn’tstandaghostofachancetobepassedwithoutit,andtheglobaleliteknewit.FastTrackwascreatedasaveryspecificlegislativetool toaccomplishaveryspecificexecutive task --namely, to“fast track” thecreationofthe“NewInternationalEconomicOrder”envisionedbytheTrilateralCommissionin1973!Article Six of theU.S. Constitution states that “all Treatiesmade, or which

shall bemade, under theAuthority of theUnited States, shall be the supremeLawoftheLandandtheJudgesineveryStateshallbeboundthereby,anyThingin the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”Becauseinternationaltreatiessupersedenationallaw,FastTrackhasallowedanenormous restructuring of U.S. law without resorting to a ConstitutionalConvention. It isaclearexampleof the“endrunaroundnationalsovereignty”thatRichardGardnerhadcalled for in1974. In thiscase, itwas thecounter-move to the failed “frontal assault” by Henry Kissinger and ZbigniewBrzezinskiasearlyas1972whentheycalledforaConstitutionalConventiontochange the very fabric of our nation.Those suggestionswere overwhelminglyrejectedby theAmericanpublicasoutrageousanddangerous. In theend,FastTrackachievedthatandmore.NorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreementNAFTAwasnegotiatedundertheexecutive leadership of Republican President George H.W. Bush. CarlaHills is widely credited as being the principal architect and negotiator ofNAFTA.BothBushandHillsweremembersoftheTrilateralCommission!With Bush’s first presidential term drawing to a close and Bush desiring

politicalcreditforNAFTA,an“initialing”ceremonyofNAFTAwasstaged(soBush could take credit for NAFTA) in October, 1992. Although very officiallooking, most Americans did not understand the difference between initialingandsigning;atthetime,FastTrackwasnotimplementedandBushdidnothavetheauthoritytoactuallysignsuchatradeagreement.Bush subsequently lost a publicly contentious presidential race to Democrat

WilliamJeffersonClinton,buttheywerehardlypolaroppositesontheissueofFreeTrade andNAFTA.The reason?Clintonwas also a seasonedmemberoftheTrilateralCommission. Immediatelyafter inauguration,Clintonbecame thechampion of NAFTA and orchestrated its passage with a massive ExecutiveBrancheffort.Priortothe1992election,however,therewasaflyintheTrilateralointment,

namely,presidentialcandidateandbillionaireRossPerot,founderandchairmanof Electronic Data Systems (EDS). Perot was politically independent,vehementlyanti-NAFTAandchosetomakeitamajorcampaignissuein1991.In the end, the global elite would have to spend huge sums of money toovercomethenegativepublicitythatPerotgavetoNAFTA.Atthetime,somepoliticalanalystsbelievedthatPerot,beingabillionaire,was

somehow put up to this task by the same elitists whowere pushingNAFTA.

Presumably, itwouldaccumulate all theanti-globalists inone tidygroup, thusallowingtheelitiststodeterminewhotheirtrueenemiesreallywere.Itisamootpoint todaywhether hewas sincere or not, but it did have that outcome, andPerotbecamealightningrodforthewholeissueoffreetrade.Perot hit the nail squarely on the head in one of his nationally televised

campaignspeeches:Ifyou’repaying$12,$13,$14anhourforfactoryworkersand you canmove your factory south of the border, pay a dollar an hour forlabor, hire young -- let’s assume you’ve been in business for a long time andyou’vegot amatureworkforce - pay adollar anhour for your labor, havenohealthcare-that’sthemostexpensivesingleelementinmakingacar-havenoenvironmentalcontrols,nopollutioncontrols,andnoretirement,andyoudidn’tcare about anything but makingmoney, there will be a giant sucking soundgoingsouth....70[Emphasisadded]Perot’s message struck a nerve with millions of Americans, but it was

unfortunately cut short when he entered into public campaign debates withfellowcandidateAlbertGore.Simplyput,GoreatePerot’slunch,notsomuchontheissuesthemselves,butonhavingsuperiordebatingskills.AsorganizedasPerotwas,hewasnomatchforapoliticallyandgloballyseasonedpoliticianlikeAlGore. To counter the public relations damage done by Perot, all the stopswerepulledoutastheNAFTAvotedrewnear.Asproxyfortheglobalelite,thePresident unleashed the biggest andmost expensive spinmachine the countryhadeverseen.FormerChryslerchairmanLeeIacoccawasenlistedforamulti-milliondollar

nationwide ad campaign that praised the benefits of NAFTA. The mantra,carried consistently throughout the many spin events: “Exports. Better Jobs.BetterWages.”allofwhichhaveturnedouttobeemptypromises.BillClintoninvitedthreeformerpresidentstotheWhiteHousetostandwith

himinpraiseandaffirmationofNAFTA.ThiswasthefirsttimeinU.S.historythatfourpresidentshadeverappearedtogether.Ofthefour,threeweremembersof theTrilateralCommission:BillClinton,JimmyCarter andGeorgeH.W.Bush.GeraldFordwasnotaCommissioner,butwasneverthelessaconfirmedglobalistinsider.AfterFord’saccessiontothepresidencyin1974,hepromptlynominatedNelsonRockefeller (DavidRockefeller’s oldest brother) to fill theVicePresidencythatFordhadjustvacated.Theacademiccommunitywasenlistedwhen,accordingtoHarper’sMagazine

publisher JohnMacArthur, ...there was a pro-NAFTA petition, organized andwrittenbyMIT’sRudigerDornbusch,addressedtoPresidentClintonandsigned

by all twelve livingNobel laureates in economics, and exercised in academiclogrolling thatwas expertly converted byBillDaley and theA-Team into PRgold on the front page of TheNewYork Times on September 14. ‘DearMr.President,’wrotethe283signatories...71

Lastly, prominent Trilateral Commission members themselves took to thepress to promote NAFTA. For instance, on May 13, 1993, CommissionersHenryKissinger andCyrusVancewrote a joint op-ed that stated, [NAFTA]would be the most constructive measure the United States would haveundertakeninourhemisphereinthiscentury.72

Twomonths later,Kissingerwent further: Itwill represent themost creativesteptowardanewworldordertakenbyanygroupofcountriessincetheendoftheColdWar,andthefirststeptowardanevenlargervisionofafree-tradezonefor the entire Western Hemisphere. [NAFTA] is not a conventional tradeagreement, but the architecture of a new international system.73 [Emphasisadded]It ishardlyfanciful to think thatKissinger’shypesoundsquitesimilar to the

TrilateralCommission’soriginalgoalofcreatingaNewInternationalEconomicOrder.On January1,1994,NAFTAbecame law.UnderFastTrackprocedures, the

househadpasseditby234-200(132Republicansand102Democratsvotinginfavor),andtheU.S.Senatepasseditby61-38.ThatGiantSuckingSoundGoingSouthTounderstandthepotentialimpactoftheNorthAmericanUnion,onemustunderstandtheimpactofNAFTA.NAFTApromised greater exports, better jobs and betterwages. Since 1994,

just the opposite has occurred. The U.S. trade deficit soared, approaching $1trilliondollarsperyear;theU.S.haslostsome1.5millionjobs,andrealwagesinboththeU.S.andMexicohavefallensignificantly.PatrickBuchananofferedasimpleexampleofNAFTA’sdeleteriouseffecton

theU.S. economy:WhenNAFTApassed in1993,we imported some225,000carsandtrucksfromMexico,butexportedabout500,000vehiclestotheworld.In2005,ourexportstotheworldwerestillashadeunder500,000vehicles,butourautoandtruckimportsfromMexicohadtripledto700,000vehicles.AsMcMillionwrites,MexiconowexportsmorecarsandtruckstotheUnitedStatesthantheUnitedStatesexportstothewholeworld.Afineend,isitnot,totheUnitedStatesas“AutoCapitaloftheWorld”?Whathappened?Post-NAFTA, theBigThree justpickedupahugesliceof

ourautoindustryandmovedit,andthejobs,toMexico.74

Ofcourse,thisonlyrepresentstheautoindustry,butthesameeffecthasbeenseen inmany other industries aswell. Buchanan correctly noted thatNAFTAwas never just a trade deal. Rather, it was an “enabling act - to enable U.S.corporations to dump their American workers and move their factories toMexico.” Indeed, this is the very spirit of all outsourcing of U.S. jobs andmanufacturingfacilitiestooverseaslocations.RespectedeconomistAlanTonelson,authorofTheRacetotheBottom,notes

thesmokeandmirrors thatcloudwhathasreallyhappenedwithexports:MostU.S.exportstoMexicobefore,duringandsincethe(1994)pesocrisishavebeenproducergoods-inparticular,partsandcomponentssentbyU.S.multinationalsto their Mexican factories for assembly or for further processing. The vastmajorityofthese,moreover,arereexported,andmostgetshippedrightbacktotheUnitedStatesforfinalsale.Infact,bymostestimates,theUnitedStatesbuys80to90percentofallofMexico’sexports.75

Tonelson concludes that “the vast majority of American workers haveexperienceddeclininglivingstandards,notjustahandfuloflosers.”Mexican economist and scholarMiguelPickard sumsupMexico’s supposed

benefits fromNAFTA:Muchpraisehasbeenheard for the few ‘winners’ thatNAFTA has created, but little mention is made of the fact that the Mexicanpeople are the deal’s big ‘losers.’Mexicans now face greater unemployment,poverty,andinequalitythanbeforetheagreementbeganin1994.76

Inshort,NAFTAhasnotbeenafriendtothecitizenryoftheUnitedStatesorMexico.Still, thiswas thebackdropagainstwhich theNorthAmericanUnion(NAU) is being acted out. The globalization players and their promises haveremainedprettymuchthesame,bothjustasdisingenuousasever.Prelude to the North American Union Remember that a core element ofTechnocracy, Inc. in the 1930swas the continental integration ofMexico,theUnitedStates,Canada,CentralAmericaandportionsofSouthAmericato include Columbia and Venezuela. Howard Scott never addressed theissueofhowtointegratethesenations,butasolutionwasproposedwiththecreationofNAFTA.Soonafteritwaspassedin1994,Dr.RobertA.Pastorbegantopushfora“deepintegration”whichNAFTAcouldnotprovidebyitself. His dream was summed up in his book, Toward a North AmericanUnion,published in2001.Unfortunately forPastor, thebookwasreleasedjust a few days prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in NewYork and thus

receivedlittleattentionfromanysector.However,Pastorhadtherightconnections.Hewasinvitedtoappearbeforethe

plenary session of the Trilateral Commission held in Ontario, Canada onNovember1-2,2002,todeliverapaperdrawingdirectlyonhisbook.Hispaper,A Modest Proposal To the Trilateral Commission, made severalrecommendations:

...the three governments should establish a North AmericanCommission (NAC) todefineanagenda forSummitmeetingsby thethreeleadersandtomonitortheimplementationofthedecisionsandplans.A second institution should emerge from combining two bilaterallegislativegroupsintoaNorthAmericanParliamentaryGroup.The third institution should be a Permanent Court on Trade andInvestment.The three leaders should establish a North American DevelopmentFund, whose priority would be to connect theU.S.-Mexican borderregiontocentralandsouthernMexico.The North American Commission should develop an integratedcontinentalplanfortransportationandinfrastructure....negotiateaCustomsUnionandaCommonExternalTariff.Our three governments should sponsorCenters forNorth AmericanStudies in each of our countries to help the people of all threeunderstand the problems and the potential of North America andbegintothinkofthemselvesasNorthAmericans.77

Pastor’s choice of the words “Modest Proposal” were almost comicalconsideringthatheintendedtoreorganizetheentireNorthAmericancontinent.Nevertheless, the Trilateral Commission was completely on board.

Subsequently,itwasPastorwhoemergedastheU.S.vice-chairmanoftheCFRtaskforcethatwasannouncedonOctober15,2004:TheCouncilhaslaunchedan independent task forceon the futureofNorthAmerica toexamine regionalintegration since the implementation of the North American Free TradeAgreementtenyearsago....Thetaskforcewillreviewfivespheresofpolicyinwhich greater cooperation may be needed. They are: deepening economicintegration; reducing the development gap; harmonizing regulatory policy;enhancing security; and devising better institutions to manage conflicts that

inevitablyarisefromintegrationandexploitopportunitiesforcollaboration.78

Independenttaskforce,indeed!Atotaloftwenty-threememberswerechosenfrom the three countries. Each country was represented by a member of theTrilateralCommission:CarlaA.Hills(U.S.),LuisRubio(Mexico)andWendyK.Dobson(Canada).RobertPastorservedastheU.S.vice-chairman.ThisCFRtaskforcewasuniqueinthatitfocusedoneconomicandpoliticalpoliciesforallthreecountries,notjusttheU.S.TheTaskForcestatedpurposewasto...identifyinadequacies in the current arrangements and suggest opportunities for deepercooperationonareasofcommon interest.UnlikeotherCouncil-sponsored taskforces,whichfocusprimarilyonU.S.policy,thisinitiativeincludesparticipantsfromCanada andMexico, aswell as theUnited States, andwillmake policyrecommendationsforallthreecountries.79

RichardHaass,chairmanoftheCFRandlong-timememberoftheTrilateralCommission, pointedly made the link between NAFTA and integration ofMexico, Canada and theU.S.: Ten years after NAFTA, it is obvious that thesecurity and economic futures of Canada, Mexico, and the United States areintimatelybound.But there isprecious little thinkingavailableas towhere thethreecountriesneedtobeinanothertenyearsandhowtogetthere.Iamexcitedaboutthepotentialofthistaskforcetohelpfillthisvoid.80

Haass’ statement “there is precious little thinking available” underscores arepeatedlyusedelitisttechnique.Thatis,firstdecidewhatyouwanttodo,andsecond,assignaflockofacademicstojustifyyourintendedactions.Thisisthecrux of academic funding byNGOs such as theRockefeller Foundation, FordFoundation,Carnegie-Mellon,etc.Afterthejustificationprocessiscomplete,thesameelitesthatsuggesteditinthefirstplaceallowthemselvestobedrawninasiftheyhadnootherlogicalchoicebuttoplayalongwiththe“soundthinking”oftheexperts.The task forcemet three times,once ineachcountry.When theprocesswas

completed,itissueditsresultsinMay,2005,inapapertitledBuildingaNorthAmericanCommunityandsubtitledReportoftheIndependentTaskForceontheFuture ofNorth America. Even the subtitle suggests that the “future ofNorthAmerica”isafaitaccomplidecidedbehindcloseddoors.Someoftherecommendationsofthetaskforcewere:

AdoptacommonexternaltariffAdoptaNorthAmericanApproachtoRegulationEstablishacommonsecurityperimeterby2010

Establish a North American investment fund for infrastructure andhumancapitalEstablishapermanenttribunalforNorthAmericandisputeresolutionAn annual North American Summit meeting that would bring theheads-of-statetogetherforthesakeofpublicdisplayofconfidenceEstablishminister-ledworkinggroups thatwillbe required to reportbackwithin90days,andtomeetregularlyCreateaNorthAmericanAdvisoryCouncilCreateaNorthAmericanInter-ParliamentaryGroup.81

Sound familiar? It should.Many of the recommendations are verbatim fromPastor’s “modest” presentation to theTrilateralCommissionmentioned above,orfromhisearlierbook,TowardaNorthAmericanUnion.Shortlyafter the taskforcereportwas issued, theheadsofall threecountries

didindeedmeettogetherforasummitinWaco,TexasonMarch23,2005.Thespecific result of the summit was the creation of the Security and ProsperityPartnership of North America (SPP). The joint press release stated, We, theelectedleadersofCanada,Mexico,andtheUnitedStates,havemetinTexastoannouncetheestablishmentoftheSecurityandProsperityPartnershipofNorthAmerica.Wewill establishworkingparties ledbyourministersand secretaries thatwill consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These workingpartieswillrespond to theprioritiesofourpeopleandourbusinesses,andwill set specific, measurable, and achievable goals. They will outlineconcrete steps that our governments can take tomeet these goals, and setdatesthatwillensurethecontinuousachievementofresults.Within 90 days, ministers will present their initial report after which, theworkingpartieswillsubmitsix-monthlyreports.BecausethePartnershipwillbeanongoingprocessofcooperation,newitemswillbeaddedtotheworkagendabymutualagreementascircumstanceswarrant.82

Onceagain,wesawPastor’sNorthAmericanUnionideologybeingcontinued,but this timeasanoutcomeofa summitmeetingof threeheads-of-states.Thequestionmustberaised,“Whowasreallyinchargeofthisprocess?”Indeed, the three premiers returned to their respective countries and started

their“workingparties”to“consultwithstakeholders”.IntheU.S.,the“specific,measurable,andachievablegoals”wereonlyseenindirectlybythecreationofa

government website billed as “Security and Prosperity Partnership of NorthAmerica”. The stakeholders are notmentioned by name, but it was clear thatthey were generally representatives of business interests of members of theTrilateralCommission!The second annual summit meeting took place on March 30-31, 2006, in

Cancun, Mexico among Bush, Fox and Canadian prime minister StephenHarper. The Security and Prosperity Partnership agendawas summed up in astatementfromMexicanpresidentVicenteFox:Wetoucheduponfundamentalitemsinthatmeeting.Firstofall,wecarriedoutanevaluationmeeting.Thenwegot information about the development of programs. And then we gave thenecessaryinstructionsfortheworksthatshouldbecarriedoutinthenextperiodofwork...WearenotrenegotiatingwhathasbeensuccessfuloropenintheFreeTrade Agreement. It’s going beyond the agreement, both for prosperity andsecurity.83

RegulationsinsteadofTreatiesItmaynothaveoccurredtothereaderthatthe two SPP summits resulted in no signed agreements. This is notaccidental nor a failure of the summit process. The so-called “deeperintegration”ofthethreecountriesisbeingaccomplishedthroughaseriesofregulations and executive decrees that avoid citizen watchdogs andlegislativeoversight.84

In the U.S., the 2005 Cancun summit spawned some 20 different workinggroups that would deal with issues from immigration to security toharmonization of regulations, all under the auspices of the Security andProsperity Partnership. The SPP in the U.S. was officially placed under theDepartmentofCommerce,headedbySecretaryCarlosM.Gutierrez,butotherExecutive Branch agencies also had SPP components that reported toCommerce.Aftertwoyearsofmassiveeffortbyinvestigativejournalists,thenamesofthe

SPPworkinggroupmemberswereneverdiscovered,norwastheresultoftheirwork.Furthermore,CongressionaloversightoftheSPPprocesswascompletelyabsent.ThedirectorofSPP,GeriWord,wascontactedtoaskwhyacloudofsecrecy

washangingoverSPP.AccordingtoinvestigativejournalistJeromeCorsi,Wordreplied, “We did not want to get the contact people of the working groupsdistractedbycallsfromthepublic.”85

Thispaternalisticattitude isa typicalelitistmentality.Theirwork-whatever

theyhavedreamedupontheirown-istooimportanttobedistractedbythelikesofpeskycitizensortheirelectedlegislators.Thiselitechangeoftacticsmustnotbeunderstated:RegulationsandExecutive

Orders have replacedCongressional legislation and public debate.There is nopretense of either. This is another Gardner-style “end-run around nationalsovereignty,erodingitpiecebypiece.”Apparently, theTrilateral-dominatedBushadministrationbelieved that ithad

accumulatedsufficientpowertoramtheNAUdownthethroatoftheAmericanPeople,whethertheyprotestedornot.RobertA.Pastor:ATrilateralCommissionOperativeAsmentionedearlier,Pastor was hailed as the father of the North American Union, havingwrittenmorepapersabout it,deliveredmoretestimoniesbeforeCongress,andheadeduptaskforcestostudyit,thananyothersingleU.S.academicfigure.Hewas a tireless architect and advocate of theNAU.Althoughhemight seem tohavebeen a fresh, newname in the globalizationbusiness,Pastor has a long history with Trilateral Commission members and theglobalelite.HeisthesameRobertPastorwhowastheexecutivedirectorofthe1974CFR

task force (funded by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations) called theCommissiononU.S.-LatinAmericanRelations-akatheLinowitzCommission.TheLinowitzCommission,chairedbyanoriginalTrilateralCommissioner,SolLinowitz, was singularly credited with the giveaway of the Panama Canal in1976 under the Carter presidency. All of the Linowitz Commission memberswere members of the Trilateral Commission save one, Albert Fishlow; othermembers were W. Michael Blumenthal, Samuel Huntington, Peter G.Peterson,ElliotRichardsonandDavidRockefeller.One of Carter’s first actions as President in 1977 was to appoint Zbigniew

BrzezinskitothepostofNationalSecurityAdvisor.Inturn,oneofBrzezinski’sfirst acts was to appoint his protégé, Dr. Robert A. Pastor, as director of theOffice of Latin American and Caribbean Affairs. Pastor then became theTrilateralCommission’spoint-mantolobbyfortheCanalgiveaway.To actually negotiate theCarter-Torrijos Treaty,Carter sent none other than

Sol Linowitz to Panama as temporary ambassador. The 6-month temporaryappointment avoided the requirement for Senate confirmation. Thus, the verysamepeoplewhocreatedthepolicybecameresponsibleforexecutingit.The Trilateral Commission’s role in the Carter Administration has been

confirmedbyPastorhimself inhis1992paperTheCarterAdministrationandLatinAmerica:ATestofPrinciple:Inconvertingitspredispositionintoapolicy,the new administration had the benefit of the research done by two privatecommissions. Carter, Vance, and Brzezinski were members of the TrilateralCommission,whichprovidedaconceptual framework forcollaborationamongtheindustrializedcountriesinapproachingthefullgamutofinternationalissues.With regard to setting an agenda and an approach toLatinAmerica, themostimportantsourceofinfluenceontheCarteradministrationwastheCommissiononU.S.-LatinAmericanRelations,chairedbySolM.Linowitz.86

AstothefinalLinowitzCommissionreportsonLatinAmerica,mostofwhichwereauthoredbyPastorhimself,hestates,Thereportshelpedtheadministrationdefine a new relationship with Latin America, and 27 of the 28 specificrecommendationsinthesecondreportbecameU.S.policy.87

TheSecurityandProsperityPartnershipwasquietlyterminatedinAugust2009whenitswebsitewasupdatedtosay“TheSecurityandProsperityPartnershipofNorth America (SPP) is no longer an active initiative. There will not be anyupdatestothissite.”88

Pastor’sdeepinvolvementwithTrilateralCommissionmembersandpoliciesisirrefutable. In 1996, when Trilateral Commissioner Bill Clinton nominatedPastorasAmbassadortoPanama,hisconfirmationwasforcefullyknockeddownbySenatorJesseHelms(R-NC)whoheldadeepgrudgeagainstPastor forhiscentralroleinthegiveawayofthePanamaCanalin1976.

ConclusionItisclearthattheExecutiveBranchoftheU.S.wasliterallyhijacked in 1976 by members of the Trilateral Commission, upon theelection of President Jimmy Carter and Vice-President Walter Mondale.This near-absolute domination, especially in the areas of trade, banking,economicsandforeignpolicy,hascontinuedunchallengedandunabatedtothepresent.Windfall profits have accrued to interests associated with the Trilateral

Commission,buttheeffectoftheir“NewInternationalEconomicOrder”ontheU.S.hasbeennothinglessthandevastating.The philosophical underpinnings of the Trilateral Commission have the

appearanceofbeingpro-Marxistandpro-Socialist,butonlyasasteppingstoneleadingtoBrzezinski’sTechnetronic,orTechnocratic,society.Theyaresolidlysetagainst theconceptof thenation-stateand inparticular, theConstitutionofthe United States. Thus, national sovereignty must be diminished and then

abolishedaltogether inorder tomakewayfor theNewInternationalEconomicOrder thatwillbegovernedbyanunelectedglobalelitewith theirself-createdlegalframework.IfyouarehavinganegativereactionagainstTrilateral-styleglobalization,you

are not alone. A 2007Financial Times/Harris poll revealed that less than 20percentofpeopleinsixindustrializedcountries(includingtheU.S.)believethatglobalization is good for their country while over 50 percent are outrightnegative towards it.89While citizens around the world are feeling the pain ofglobalization, few understand why it is happening and hence, they have noeffectivestrategytoresistit.TheAmericanpublichasnever, everconceived that such forceswouldalign

themselves so successfully against freedom and liberty. Yet, the evidence isclear; steerage ofAmerica has long since fallen into the hands of an activelyhostileenemythatintendstoremoveallvestigesoftheverythingsthatmadeusthegreatestnationinthehistoryofmankind.

52DavidRockefeller,Memoirs(RandomHouse,2002),p.418.53Note:Forclarification,TrilateralCommissionmembernamesareinbold.54Trialogue,TrilateralCommission(1973).55“JimmyCarter:ManoftheYear”,TimeMagazine,January7,1977.56Sutton&Wood,TrilateralsOverWashington(August,1979),p.7.57LeslieGelb,“JimmyCarter”,NewYorkTimes,May23,1976.58ibid.59“LookingBack¦AndForward,”Trialogue,(TrilateralCommission,1976)60ibid.61VejaMagazine,(Brazil,1974).62ibid.63BarryGoldwater,WithNoApologies,(Morrow,1979),p.280.64PatrickWood,“GlobalBanking:TheWorldBank”,TheAugustForecast&Review.65BoardofDirectors,CouncilonForeignRelations,http://www.cfr.org/about/people/board_of_directors.html.66“BuildingaNorthAmericanCommunity”,CouncilonForeignRelations,(2005).67DavidRockefeller,IntheBeginning:TheTrilateralCommissionat25,(TrilateralCommission,1998),p.11.68“FastTrackTalkingPoints”,GlobalTradeWatch,PublicCitizen(http://www.citizen.org/hot_issues/print_issue.cfm?ID=141).69DavidRockefeller,Memoirs,(RandomHouse,2011),p.438.70RossPerot,“ExcerptsFromPresidentialDebates”,(1992).71JohnMacArthur,TheSellingofFreeTrade,(Univ.ofCal.Press,2001)p.228.72HenryKissingerandCyrusVance,OpEd,WashingtonPost,May13,1993.73HenryKissinger,Op-Ed.LosAngelesTimes,July18,1993.74PatrickBuchanan,“TheFruitsofNAFTA”,TheConservativeVoice,March10,2006.75AlanTonelson,TheRacetotheBottom,(WestviewPress,2002)p.89.76MiguelPickard,“TrinationalElitesMapNorthAmericanFuturein‘NAFTAPlus’”,(http://www.irc-online.com).77Dr.RobertA.Pastor,“AModestProposalTotheTrilateralCommission”,TrilateralCommission,2002.78“CouncilJoinsLeadingCanadiansandMexicanstoLaunchIndependentTaskForceontheFutureofAmerica”,(http://www.cfr.org/world/council-joins-leading-canadians-mexicans-launch-independent-task-force-future-north-america/p7454),October15,2004.79ibid.80ibid.81“BuildingaNorthAmericanCommunity”,CouncilonForeignRelations,2005.82“NorthAmericanLeadersUnveilSecurityandProsperityPartnership,InternationalInformationPrograms”,U.S.Govt.Website.83VincenteFox,“ConcludingPressConferenceatCancunSummit”,March31,2006.

84Pickard,p.185JeromeCorsi,“BushsneakingNorthAmericansuper-statewithoutoversight?”,WorldNetDaily,June12,2006.86Dr.RobertA.Pastor,“TheCarterAdministrationandLatinAmerica:ATestofPrinciple”,TheCarterCenter,July1992,p.9.87ibid.p.10.88“TheSPPisdead.Let’skeepitthatway”,September24,2009,(http://rabble.ca/news/2009/09/spp-dead-lets-keep-it-way).89FT/HarrispollonGlobalization,(http://www.FT.com).

TCHAPTER4

TRANSFORMINGECONOMICSECHNOCRACYPROPOSEDACOMPLETELYDIFFERENT

ECONOMICSYSTEMTHATHADNEVERBEENIMPLEMENTEDINTHEHISTORYOFTHEWORLD.IT

WASTOBEASYSTEMRUNBYSCIENTISTSANDENGINEERSWHOWOULDMAKEDECISIONSBASEDONTHEIRAPPLICATIONOFTHESCIENTIFICMETHOD

TOCONTROLBOTHSOCIALANDECONOMIC

MATTERS.PRICE-BASEDECONOMICS,WITHITSPROVENLAWSOFSUPPLYANDDEMAND,WOULDBE

REPLACEDWITHANENERGY-BASEDSYSTEMCONTROLLEDBYTHEDISTRIBUTIONAND

CONSUMPTIONOFENERGY.CONSUMERSWOULDBEFORCEDTOABANDONTRADITIONALMONEYINRETURNFORENERGYCREDITSTHATWOULDBE

SPENTTOACQUIREGOODSANDSERVICESTHATAREARTIFICIALLYPRICEDBASEDONTHEENERGYCONSUMEDINBRINGINGTHOSEGOODSAND

SERVICESTOTHEMARKETPLACE.PEOPLEWOULD

WORKATASSIGNEDJOBSDEEMEDTOBEBESTSUITEDFORTHEIREDUCATION,SKILLS,

INTELLIGENCEANDTEMPERAMENT.THUS,THETECHNOCRACYWOULDTHEREFOREMINIMIZETHEUSEOFRAWMATERIALSBYASSURINGMAXIMUM

EFFICIENCY,MINIMUMWASTE,ANDREASONABLEAMOUNTSOFEND-USERCONSUMPTION.WHO

WOULDDECIDEWHATISREASONABLEFORYOURPERSONALCONSUMPTION?THEYWOULD.EACH

PERSONWOULDRECEIVEACCORDINGTOHISNEED,ASLONGASHISNEEDWASWITHINBOUNDS

ALLOWEDBYTHETECHNOCRATICREGULATORS.Theelementsofthisneweconomicsystemcanthusbeseenveryclearlyinthe

TechnocracyStudyCourse:

Register on a continuous 24 hour-per-day basis the total netconversionofenergy.Bymeansoftheregistrationofenergyconvertedandconsumed,makepossibleabalancedload.Provideacontinuousinventoryofallproductionandconsumption.Provideaspecificregistrationofthetype,kind,etc.,ofallgoodsandservices,whereproducedandwhereused.Provide specific registration of the consumption of each individual,plusarecordanddescriptionoftheindividual.90

Theseconditemaboveintendedto“makepossibleabalancedload,”andthisistheheartofthesystem.Incessantmonitoringofeveryactionwithinthesystemmakespossiblethecalculationsnecessaryforastateofbalance,orequilibrium.Thiswouldrequirecontinuousadjustmentofbothoutputandconsumption,withthelimitingfactorbeingresourceusage.If it seems to you that such an economicmodel is completely Orwellian in

nature, it is because that is exactly the case. Itwouldmicromanage every last

detail of your life according to the formulas and algorithms created by theenlightenedscientistsandengineers.The apparent lunacy of Technocracy becomesmore clear as you dig deeper

intoit.Howisitthen,thatwefindtheUnitedNationsastheprimarydriverforTechnocracyinallthenationsoftheworld?Thisisapressingquestionthatwillbeansweredinshortorder,butnotbeforealittlefurtherexplanationtolaythegroundwork.TheUnitedNationshashadauniformstrategyacrossallofitsmanyunitsto

fosterthecreationofaso-called“greeneconomy”.ApartialdefinitionofwhatthismeansisfoundinastatementbytheUnitedNationsGoverningCouncilofthe U.N. Environmental Programme (UNEP): A green economy implies thedecouplingofresourceuseandenvironmentalimpactsfromeconomicgrowth...These investments, both public and private, provide the mechanism for thereconfiguration of businesses, infrastructure and institutions, and for theadoptionofsustainableconsumptionandproductionprocesses.91

Sustainable consumption? Reconfiguring businesses, infrastructure andinstitutions?Whatdo thesewordsmean?This is notmerely a reshuffleof theexistingorderbutatotalreplacementwithacompletelyneweconomicsystem,onethathasneverbeforebeenseenorusedinthehistoryoftheworld.ThisisunderscoredbyUNEPwhenitfurtherstates,“ourdominant[current]economicmodelmaythusbetermeda‘browneconomy.’”ToUNEP,thereisaconsistentsense of urgency to kill off the existing brown economy in favor of a greeneconomy.Brown is bad. Green is good. Brown represents the failed past. Green

representsthebrightfuture.However,tograspwhatitmeanstodecoupleresourceuseandenvironmental

impactsfromeconomicgrowth,thefocusmustbeontheworddecoupling.TheInternational Resource Panel (IRP), another unit of UNEP, gives a cleardefinition:While ‘decoupling’ can be applied inmany fields, from algebra toelectronics, the IRP applies the concept to sustainable development in twodimensions.Resourcedecouplingmeansreducingtherateoftheuseofresourcesperunitof economicactivity. Impactdecouplingmeansmaintainingeconomicoutput while reducing the negative environmental impact of any economicactivitiesthatareundertaken.Relativedecouplingofresourcesorimpactsmeansthatthegrowthrateoftheresourcesusedorenvironmentalimpactsislowerthanthe economic growth rate, so that resource productivity is rising. Absolutereductionsofresourceuseareaconsequenceofdecouplingwhenthegrowthrate

ofresourceproductivityexceedsthegrowthrateoftheeconomy.92

Note that decoupling has no meaning outside of the UN’s concept ofsustainabledevelopment.UNEP actuallymaintains a dedicatedweb site titledGreen Economywhere

prominently labeled subsections are seen: Climate Change, EcosystemManagement, Environmental Governance and Resource Efficiency. Theirinitiative,PartnershipforActiononGreenEconomy(PAGE),statesthatitis,…a response to the outcome document of the United Nations Conference onSustainable Development (Rio+20), entitled The Future We Want, whichrecognizes the green economy as a vehicle for sustainable development andpovertyeradication.93

Whoisthe“we”inTheFutureWeWant?Well,sincenoneofthiswaseverputtoapublicvote inanycountry in theworld, it isobvious that it refersonly tothemselves.Nevertheless,wecanseethatthegreeneconomyis“avehicleforsustainable

developmentandpoverty eradication.” It is also clear that thegreen economyconcept is an outcome of the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development(Rio+20, held in Rio de Janeiro on June 20-22, 2012). The U.N.’s first Rioconference held in 1992 created the original and definitive document forsustainabledevelopmentcalledAgenda21.TheRio+20conferencewasheldtofurtherAgenda21andSustainableDevelopmentonaglobalbasis.TheabovementionedPAGEdocumentfurtherstates that therearefourmain

U.N.agenciesthatarefocusedinunisononcreatingthegreeneconomy:

UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme(UNEP)InternationalLabourOrganization(ILO)UnitedNationsIndustrialDevelopmentOrganization(UNIDO)UnitedNationsInstituteforTrainingandResearch(UNITAR)

Together,PAGEwillbuild enabling conditions in participating countries by shifting investmentand policies towards the creation of a new generation of assets, such asclean technologies, resource efficient infrastructure, well-functioningecosystems,greenskilledlabourandgoodgovernance.94

NotethatitistheU.N.whoassertsthattheywillshiftinvestmentandpoliciesin order to achieve their desired outcomes of efficiency and governance. Indirect Technocracy lingo, governance refers to management of society by

engineeringexpertswhoalonecancreatea“resourceefficientinfrastructure”.Inthisshorttreatmentofthegreeneconomy,Ihavepurposelytreadlightlyto

show that it is wrapped up in a network of global agendas that is squarelyfocusedontheoriginaltenetofTechnocracy,namely,SustainableDevelopment.Nodoubtatechnocratreadingthisbookwillcry“foul!”atthisassertion.Whileit is true that the literal termof“SustainableDevelopment”wasnotcoinedbytheoriginalTechnocrats,mostwouldbejealousthatsomeoneelsebeatthemtoit. The fact of the matter is that Sustainable Development is conceptuallyidenticaltoTechnocracy’s“balancedload”.Thefoundationaldocument forTechnocracy, Inc.was thebookTechnocracy

StudyCourse,writtenprimarilybyco-founderM.KingHubbert.Inithestated,Althoughit[theearth]isnotanisolatedsystemthechangesintheconfigurationofmatterontheearth,suchastheerosionofsoil,themakingofmountains,theburning of coal and oil, and the mining of metals are all typical andcharacteristic examples of irreversible processes, involving in each case anincreaseofentropy.95

As a scientist,Hubbert tried to explain (or justify) his argument in terms ofphysicsandthelawofthermodynamics,whichisthestudyofenergyconversionbetweenheatandmechanicalwork.Entropyisaconceptwithinthermodynamicsthatrepresentstheamountofenergyinasystemthatisnolongeravailablefordoing mechanical work. Entropy thus increases as matter and energy in thesystemdegradetowardtheultimatestateofinertuniformity.Inlayman’sterms,entropymeansonceyouuseit,youloseitforgood.Furthermore,theendstateofentropyis“inertuniformity”wherenothingtakesplace.TheTechnocrat’savoidanceofsocialentropy is to increase theefficiencyof

societyby thecarefulallocationofavailableenergyandmeasuringsubsequentoutput inorder tofindastateof“equilibrium”,orbalance.Hubbert’sfocusonentropy is further evidenced byTechnocracy, Inc.’s logo, thewell-knownYinYangsymbolthatdepictsbalance.AccordingtoHubbert’sthinkingthen,ifmanusesupalltheavailableenergy

and/ordestroystheecologyintheprocess,itcannotberepeatedorrestoredeveragain and man will cease to exist. Hubbert believed that mankind facesextinction unless efficiency and sustainable resource practices are maximizedand that suchefficienciesandpracticescanonlybe imposedbyunelectedandunaccountablescientists,engineersandtechnicians.Inshort,theheartbeatofTechnocracyisSustainableDevelopment.Itcallsfor

an engineered societywhere theneedsofmankind are inperfect balancewith

the resources of nature. Furthermore, this necessitates the “decoupling ofresource use and environmental impacts from economic growth” as statedabove. In otherwords, the driver is resource availability rather than economicgrowth.TheintroductionofthePAGEbrochurereiteratesthisidea:“Agreeneconomy

is one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, whilesignificantlyreducingenvironmentalrisksandecologicalscarcities”.96

ThebottomlineisthattheU.N.agendaforagreeneconomyisnothingmorethanwarmed-overTechnocracyfromthe1930s.Technocracy’sutopiansirencallinthe1930spromisedthesamehumanwell-

being, social equity and abundance beyond measure. Technocrats failed todeliveron theirpromisesandweregenerally rejectedbysocietyby theendofthe1930s.It is necessary to review exactly how the United Nations arose in the first

place,iffornootherreasonthantotiethesepoliciestothesameglobaleliteasrepresented by the Trilateral Commission. Notably, the Commission was co-foundedby and initially financedbyDavidRockefeller,whowas at the timechairman of Chase Manhattan Bank. The Rockefeller family also played aprominentroleinthehistoryoftheUnitedNations,forwhichIwilldefertothewords of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in 2012 commemorating theRockefeller Foundation’s “global philanthropy” and the establishment of theLeague of Nations Library: I am honoured to be here on this eighty-fifthanniversaryofthehistoricdonationofJohnD.RockefellerJr.totheLeagueofNationsLibrary.Atthetime,Mr.Rockefellersaidhemadethegiftbasedontheconvictionthat“peacemustfinallybebuiltonthefoundationofwell-informedpublicopinion.”Thispowerfulstatementringstruetoday.It is fitting thatwe are naming this roomafter him. I thank the family fordonating the portrait of John D. Rockefeller that was displayed at theRockefeller Foundation for 65 years. In offering this generous gift, DavidRockefeller said he hoped it would serve as a reminder of his father’sgenerosity – but more importantly his conviction that strong internationalorganizationscanhelpcreateajust,equitableandpeacefulworld.The Rockefeller family has lived up to this conviction, providing immensesupportfortheLeagueofNationsandtheUnitedNationsovertheyears.Theoriginaldonationtothislibrarywasparticularlysignificant.Eventoday,theinterest providesapproximately$150,000 everybiennium to thiswonderfullibrary. That makes it possible to care for its many priceless historical

treasures, including a signed copy of the Treaty of Versailles and theCovenantoftheLeagueofNations.This Library also safeguards more recent history, including the UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights,withoriginal letters fromEleanorRooseveltandRenéCassin.Iapplaudthemissionofthislibrarytoserveinternationalunderstanding.Iamdeeplygrateful toall thestaff.Youmakeanenormouscontribution through your help for researchers and citizens who areinterested in the United Nations’ history and work. I personally want tothank the Rockefeller family for my own office — and the entire UnitedNationscampusontheEastSideofManhattan.When Rockefeller’s donation of the land was announced in the GeneralAssemblyin1945,theHallwasfilledwithloudapplause.TheUnitedStatesAmbassador cheered Mr. Rockefeller’s “magnificent benevolence”. I amdeeply grateful to the esteemedmembers of theRockefeller family and theRockefeller Foundation for continuing the noble tradition of supportinginternationalorganizationsdevotedtopeace.AsrecentlyasthispastJune,attheRio+20summitonsustainabledevelopment,theRockefellerFoundationand the United Nations Global Compact launched a new framework foractiontohelpmeetsocialandenvironmentalneeds.97

“Magnificent benevolence”, indeed. The United Nations headquarters wasbuiltin1949on17acresofprimerealestate-donatedbyJohnD.Rockefeller,Jr.-inNewYorkCityonFirstAvenuebetweenEast46thandEast48thStreets.It is not hard to see the tight financial relationship between the U.N. andRockefeller interests that startedsomanydecadesago. It isonlyslightlymoreobscuretoseewhattheRockefellershavereceivedinreturnfortheirbenevolentsupport.Inmanyways, ideology can be compared to a virus.History is riddledwith

failed ideas that were forgotten as soon as they were uttered; many virusmutationsterminatedbeforetheyeverhadachancetoinfectothervictims.Whatisnecessaryforavirustospreadiscontagion,oramediumbywhichitcanbetransmitted.InorderforTechnocracytomakearesurgenceontheworldstage,italsorequiredacontagionbywhichentiresocietiesandsocialsystemscouldbesuccessfully infected.Thismedium is theUnitedNations, and theRockefellerconsortiumuseditwithgreateffectivenesstodeceivethenationsintobelievingthatSustainableDevelopment(e.g.,Technocracy’s“balance”)couldsolvealloftheworld’sproblemsandbringpeace,prosperityandsocialjusticetoeveryone.Indeed, themassofglobalhumanity isembracingthepromisesof technocratic

utopianismasifthereisnootherpossibilityforthesalvationofmankind.As a writer with an economist perspective, it is very disappointing that

economists of the academic world are completely ignoring the impacts andoutcomes of theU.N.’s so-called green economy. If itwere an argument in avacuum,Iwouldnotbeconcernedintheslightest.Butthisisactuallyhappeningtodaywhereacademiaactuallyisleadingthecharge.Nooneisevenquestioningtheoutcomesoftheirutopianstudies,muchlessrepudiatingthem.Agenda21andSustainableDevelopmentAgenda21isTechnocracy’splanfor the 21st century. The agent of implementation is SustainableDevelopment. The driver is the United Nations. The perpetrators aremembers of the Trilateral Commission and their globalist cronies. Thevictimsareallthepeoplesoftheworld.As youwill see, it is no understatement that the policies ofAgenda 21 and

SustainableDevelopmentarealreadyfullyinjectedintothefabricofeconomic,politicalandsociallifeeverywhere.Whilethe“what”iscertainlyimportant,the“who” is evenmore critical to understand.WheredidAgenda21 come from?Wasitspontaneous?WasitcreatedbylegionsofglobalwannabesattheU.N.?In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

(UNCED)sponsoredtheEarthSummitthatmetinRiodeJaneiro,Brazil.Itwasattended by representatives from 172 governments with 116 being heads-of-state, who labored for 12 intense days to produce several non-legally bindingdocuments. First, there was the 300-page Agenda 21 document that wasessentiallytheblueprintforimplementationofSustainableDevelopmentandallof itssurroundsunder theaegisof“green”and“smart”.Second, therewas theRioDeclarationonEnvironmentandDevelopment,commonlyknownastheRioDeclaration, that set forth 27 principles that would guide implementation ofSustainable Development. Third, there was the Authoritative Statement ofPrinciples for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation andSustainableDevelopmentofAllTypesofForests,asetofrecommendationsforthesustainablemanagementofforestry.TheRioDeclarationalsoproducedthreelegallybindingagreementsthatwere

openedforsignaturebyparticipatingnations.First,therewastheConventiononBiologicalDiversitythatcoveredecosystems,speciesandgeneticresources,andthatultimatelyproducedthemassive1,140-pageGlobalBiodiversityAssessmentdocument. Second, there was the United Nations Framework Convention onClimateChange(UNFCCC)thatledtotheso-calledKyotoProtocolin1997;the

purposeofUNFCCCwastoaddressclimatechangeandreducegreenhousegasemissions. Third, there was the United Nations Convention to CombatDesertification (UNCCD) thataddressedSustainableDevelopment incountriesthatexperienceseriousdroughtorincreaseindesertareas.During theRio conference, the then-SecretaryGeneral of theU.N.,Boutros-

Ghali, also called for the creation of the Earth Charter which was latercompletedandpublishedonJune29,2000.ThepreambletotheEarthCharterstates,Westandatacriticalmoment inEarth’shistory,a timewhenhumanitymust choose its future.As theworld becomes increasingly interdependent andfragile,thefutureatonceholdsgreatperilandgreatpromise.Tomoveforwardwemust recognize that in themidstof amagnificentdiversityof cultures andlifeformsweareonehumanfamilyandoneEarthcommunitywithacommondestiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global societyfoundedon respect fornature,universalhuman rights,economic justice,andacultureofpeace.Towardsthisend,itisimperativethatwe,thepeoplesofEarth,declareourresponsibilitytooneanother,tothegreatercommunityoflife,andtofuturegenerations.98

ItisnotcoincidentalthattheprincipalauthoroftheEarthCharterwasStephenC. Rockefeller, the son of the former Vice President Nelson Rockefeller andnephewofDavidRockefeller.StephenRockefellerhasbeenakeyplayerintheRockefellerfamilybyservingasatrusteeoftheRockefellerBrothersFundandasadirectoroftheRockefellerPhilanthropyAdvisors.Stephenhasneverbeenamember of the Trilateral Commission, but he was a founder of the interfaithmovementandhasbeenactivefordecades to infuseglobalization intoreligionallovertheworld.Atanyrate,theRioDeclarationwasabusyandproductiveevent,kickingoff

thebiggestsalvoofglobalistmumbo-jumbotheworldhaseverseenatonetime.As youmight expect by now, there ismore to the story. Indeed, Rio did notmaterializeoutofnowhere,butratherwascarefullyplannedandorchestratedforyearsinadvance.According to an important U.N. document published in 2010 and titled

Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012, In 1983, the UNconvened theWCED[WorldCommissiononEnvironment andDevelopment],chaired by Norwegian PrimeMinister Gro Harlem Brundtland. Comprised ofrepresentativesfrombothdevelopedanddevelopingcountries,theCommissionwascreated toaddressgrowingconcernover the“acceleratingdeteriorationofthe human environment and natural resources and the consequences of that

deteriorationforeconomicandsocialdevelopment.”Fouryearslater,thegroupproduced the landmark publication Our Common Future (or the Brundtlandreport)thatprovidedastarkdiagnosisofthestateoftheenvironment.Thereportpopularized the most commonly used definition of sustainable development:“Development that meets the needs of current generations withoutcompromisingtheabilityoffuturegenerationstomeettheirownneeds.”99

Intheverynextparagraph,theU.N.tiestheknotbetweentheRioDeclarationand theso-calledBrundtlandCommission:TheBrundtlandreportprovided themomentumforthelandmark1992RioSummitthatlaidthefoundationsfortheglobalinstitutionalizationofsustainabledevelopment…Agenda21included40separate chapters, setting out actions in regard to the social and economicdimensions of sustainable development, conservation and management ofnaturalresources,theroleofmajorgroups,andmeansofimplementation.100

Thus,theBrundtlandCommissioncanbedirectlycreditedwithtwoimportantthings: memorializing the phrase “Sustainable Development” and laying thegroundwork for the 1992 Rio conference that produced all of the above-mentioneddocuments,agreementsandmemorandums.There were admittedly other U.N. activities dating as far back as 1972 that

providedsomefueltothefirethatwasignitedbytheBrundtlandCommission,butthisCommissionisandhasbeenwidelyunderstoodtobethequintessentialcreatorofAgenda21andmodernSustainableDevelopment.The Chair of the Brundtland Commission was none other than Trilateral

Commission member Gro Harlem Brundtland. She has been universallyacclaimed as being themain driver behind the Commission and the principalarchitectandeditorofitsconcludingreport,OurCommonFuture.FormerlythePrimeMinister ofNorway,BrundtlandwasHarvard educated and a long-timeactivistforenvironmentalcauses.Ifthiswerelikenedtoafootballgame,theUnitedNationsmighthaveheldthe

ballinplace,butitwasBrundtlandwhoperformedtheinitialkickoff.It is an interesting side-note thatBrundtland is currentlyco-chairof aglobal

organizationknownasTheElders,whosewebsitestates,“TheEldersisfoundedontheideathatwenowliveina‘globalvillage’,anincreasinglyinterconnected,interdependentworld.”101Other elders includeTrilateralCommissionmembersJimmyCarter,MaryRobinson andErnestoZedillo.Of course, TheEldersare self-appointed but nevertheless view themselves as the real elders of theglobalvillageknowntothemasplanetearth.

AftertheEarthSummitwascompleted,theTrilateralCommission’sinfluencewashardlyover.PresidentGeorgeH.BushhadpersonallyattendedtheSummitinRio,andwhileherejectedsomepartsofthesigningceremonies,hedidsigntheFrameworkConventiononClimateChange.Soon-to-bePresidentWilliamJeffersonClintonblastedBushforhisineptleadershipandstated,“Iwouldbesigningeveryoneofthosedocuments--proudly.”102

After his election, President Clinton wasted no time in starting theimplementation of Agenda 21. OnMarch 3, 1993, just onemonth before theofficial Agenda 21 book was released, Clinton hastily announced a programcalledtheNationalPerformanceReview(NPR)andappointedVicePresidentAlGoreasitsfirstdirector.OnSeptember11,1993,ClintonfinalizedtheNPRbysigningExecutiveOrder12862.In1998,thetruercolorsofNPRwererevealedwhenitwasrenamedtheNationalPartnershipforReinventingGovernment.Whytheneedtoreinventourgovernment?Inshort,implementingAgenda21

andSustainableDevelopmentwouldrequireadifferentformofgovernmentthatwas out of the view of the public and lawmakers alike.Agenda 21would beimplemented acrossAmerica through a systemof regional governance entitiescalled Councils of Governments, or COGS. At the local level, these COGSquietlyapply theseun-Americanpolicieswhilegenerallykeeping thepublic inthe dark. Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The United States shallguarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”Regional governance by unelected and unaccountable COGS is the polaroppositeofaRepublicanFormofGovernment.On April 23, 1993, the official Agenda 21 300 page, 40-chapter book was

published,anditwaswidelyheraldedbytherestoftheworld.IntheU.S.,itwasmostly a non-event.There is little doubt that if theAgenda21 bookhadbeencirculated in theU.S. asanofficialpolicydocument, therewouldhavebeenasignificantbacklash,ifnotoutrightrebellion.Clintoninsteadoptedforan“end-runaroundnationalsovereignty”bysigningExecutiveOrder12852onJune29,1993thatcreatedthePresident’sCouncilonSustainableDevelopment(PCSD).VicePresidentAlGorewroteaboutClinton’sintent:Itsgoal,hedeclared,wastofindways“tobringpeopletogethertomeettheneedsofthepresentwithoutjeopardizingthefuture.”103

ThisdirectquotefromBillClintonringsbacktoGroBrundtland’sdefinitionof Sustainable Development found in Our Common Future: Sustainabledevelopment is development that meets the needs of the present withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

[Emphasisadded]Although therewouldbeno recordof it,myguess is that somewhere in the

1980s, theTrilateralCommission(orsomeprominentmembersthereof)mettopurposely hammer out a clever marketing slogan that would sell theirTechnocracytotheworld.Ithasdefinitelymadetherounds.Youwillfrequentlyfindthisexactphraseingeneralplanningdocumentsforlocalcities,townsandcountiesallacrossAmerica!By 1998, the PCSD produced its own book, Sustainable America, that

personalized Agenda 21 policies for the U.S. According to one report, ThecrownjewelofthePCSD’sworkisthenationalactionstrategyarticulatedinthereport, Sustainable America. The report spells out a specific set of nationalgoals, backs these with a broad set of policy recommendations, and detailsspecific actions necessary to support their implementation. Finally, the reportalso includes a tentative set of indicators to measure the country’s progresstowardachievingthegoalsproposed.ThePCSD’sco-chairsandthetaskforceskepttheireyesontheprize:articulatingaroadmapfortheU.S.104[Emphasisadded]Roadmap,indeed.TheonlyproblemisthattherestofAmericawasnevertold

whatwasgoingonrightundertheirnose.In regional and local implementation scenarios, it became known as Local

Agenda21,orsimply,LA21.However,don’tthinktheAmericanpublicwasn’tcatchingonandthrowinguparoadblock;anddon’tthinkthatthePCSDdidn’tfeeltheheat.J.GaryLawrence,anadvisortothePCSD,gaveatellingspeechinJune 1998 in England, titled The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the NewMillennium and let the proverbial cat out of the bag: Participating in a UNadvocatedplanningprocesswouldverylikelybringoutmanyoftheconspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National RifleAssociation, citizenmilitias and somemembers ofCongress.This segment ofour society who fear “one-world government” and a UN invasion of theUnitedStates throughwhichour individual freedomwouldbe strippedawaywouldactivelyworktodefeatanyelectedofficialwhojoined“theconspiracy”by undertaking LA21. So, we call our processes something else, such ascomprehensive planning, growthmanagement or smart growth.105 [Emphasisadded]Ifyouhaveeverwonderedwhylocalofficialsdon’tknowwhatyouaretalking

about when you mention Agenda 21 or LA21, now you know why. Thelanguagewaschanged.Instead,askthemwhattheyknowaboutcomprehensive

planning, growth management or smart growth and you will have a lengthyconversation!AsLawrenceconcludedhistalk,hehintedattheseaofchangedirectlyahead

in 1999 and beyond: “The next step is organizational transformation so thatLA21isnotaprocessbutastateofbeing.”Today,hisgoalhaslargelybeenmetwith 717 regional government entities across 50 states, all continuouslyimplementingAgenda21andSustainableDevelopmentpolicies.SomereadersmaystillbewonderingexactlyhowSustainableDevelopmentis

related to Technocracy. The answer is contained in the word “development”whichinallcasesreferstoeconomicdevelopment.TheU.N.’sso-called“greeneconomy”issynonymouswithSustainableDevelopment,whichisprescribedbyAgenda 21, which is derived from the Technocracy-based economic model.Virtuallyevery localplanningdocumentcreated in the last tenyearswillhaveeconomicdevelopmentlanguageembeddedinit;frequentlyusedtermsincludepublic-private partnerships, smart growth, comprehensive planning, urbanrenewal,collaborativeplanning,landuseplanningandsoon.Ineveryinstance,you must remember that the green economy is not the same as America’straditionalcapitalisteconomy.Thegreeneconomychangestherulesofthegameand produces new winners and losers. Those who haven’t recognized thischanging economic landscape will most often find themselves on the outsidelookinginwonderingwhathappenedtotheworldtheyonceunderstood.

WhatisSustainableEconomy?What does the green economy mean in practical terms? To answer this

questionwemustturntotheofficialdocumentsofSustainableDevelopment:

1. Agenda21:ProgrammeofActionForSustainableDevelopment.(A21)This 294 page, 40-chapter book, published in 1993, is the originalspecification forAgenda21 thatwasdecided at theEarthSummit inRioinJune1992.

2. GlobalBiodiversityAssessment(GBA).This1140-pagedocumentwaspublishedbytheUnitedNationsEnvironmentProgrammein1995andgreatlyexpandsmanysectionsoftheAgenda21document.

The following will give a short summary of a few areas that are clearlyaddressedintheA21andGBAdocuments.

EducationEducation was seen as foundational to promote Sustainable Development

dogma. In order to promote global transformation, global education standardswereneeded.Agenda21addressedthis inChapter36:Educationiscriticalforpromotingsustainabledevelopmentandimprovingthecapacityofthepeopletoaddress environmental and development issues… [members agree to] achieveenvironmental and development awareness in all sectors of society on aworldwide scale as soon as possible… non-governmental organizations canmake an important contribution in designing and implementing educationalprogrammes.106

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for instance, is such a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) that made an “important contribution” byfunding the development of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) foreducationin2008-tothetuneof$239million!GatesturnedtoanotherNGO,the National Governors Association (NGA), to spread Common Core StateStandardsthroughoutAmerica.TheNGA’swebsiteclaimsthatCommonCoreisa “state-led effort”, but nothing could be further from the truth; it was a top-down implementation of a global program, forced down the throat ofunsuspectingstateeducatorsandparents.

FreeTradeAgenda21’streatmentofFreeTradeandProtectionismquicklygiveawaythe

peoplewhocreatedit,namely,membersoftheTrilateralCommissionandtheirglobalist friends. It is therefore not surprising that A21 states that all nationsshould Halt and reverse protectionism in order to bring about furtherliberalization and expansion of world trade… facilitate the integration of allcountries into the world economy and the international trading system…implementpreviouscommitmentstoholdandreverseprotectionismandfurtherexpandmarketaccess.107

SuchpromotionbyTrilateralmembersstartedwellbefore1992,however. In1976,TrilateralCommissionmemberCarlaA.HillschairedtheU.S.delegationtotheU.N.ConferenceonHumanSettlements(HabitatI).Herreportstated,Toachieveuniversalprogressinthequalityoflife,afairandbalancedstructureofthe economic relations between states has to be promoted. It is thereforeessentialtoimplementurgentlytheNewInternationalEconomicOrder,basedontheDeclarationandProgrammeofActionapprovedbytheGeneralAssemblyinitssixthspecialsession,andontheCharterofEconomicRightsandDutiesoftheStates.108

Thus,HillssetthetonefortheoutcomeoftheHabitatIconference,namely,tostimulate the urgent implementation of the “New International EconomicOrder”, aphraseandconcept thatwas foundnowhereelse except inTrilateralCommissionliteratureandtalkingpoints.Agriculture The Global Biodiversity Assessment calls for a reduction ofagriculturalacreage,restrictionsonunsustainableactivities,andareturnofexisting land to native habitat condition: And while agriculture hasbenefitted enormously from biodiversity, its success has contributedincreasinglytothelossofbiodiversity.Landuseforhumanfoodproductionnow occupies over one-third of the world’s land area - in 1991 croplandcovered11%oftheworld’slandarea,andpermanentpasture26%-andistheleadingcauseofhabitatconversiononaglobalbasis.109

AgriculturemakesarelativelysmallcontributiontooveralleconomicactivityinAmericaasmeasuredbytheGrossDomesticProduct,butitrepresentsalargepart of personal expenditures and is necessary for the sustaining of life.Nevertheless, pressure has been increasingly placed onAmerican farmers andrancherstocurtailtheirproductionactivities,totheextentthattensofthousandshavebeendrivenoutofbusinessoverthelast25years.

DamsandReservoirsPolicies and calls for the destruction and removal of dams began during the

ClintonAdministrationunderSecretaryoftheInteriorBruceBabbitt,whowasalso amember of the Trilateral Commission alongwith Clinton andGore. In2012Babbittwrote,“dam removalhasevolved fromanovelty toanacceptedmeans of river restoration.”110 The GBA was instrumental in moving thedestruction of dams from Babbitt’s novelty to what it is today: …damconstruction is the most obvious human intervention leading to the loss ofwetlandhabitats…Riversarealsobeinginfluencedthroughhumanactivitiesintheir catchments, which are being influenced by embankments, drainingdeforestation,urbanizationandindustry.Theremainingfree-flowinglargeriversystemsarerelativelysmallandnearlyallsituatedinthefarnorth.111

Thereareapproximately65,000dams in theUnitedStates, andsome22,000have been targeted for removal. There is nothing logical about dam removal.Hydroelectric power is the cheapest and most efficient source of energyavailable where it is possible. Economic activity surrounding lakes andreservoirs includes marinas, campgrounds, restaurants, housing developments,recreation facilities, etc., all of which would be wiped out if the waterdisappears.Property Rights Private property is eschewed, calling for governmentcontrolofrightsandresourcesthatwillbe“licensed”incertainsituations:Propertyrightscanstillbeallocatedtoenvironmentalpublicgoods,butinthiscasetheyshouldberestrictedtousufructualoruserrights.Harvestingquotas,emissionpermitsanddevelopmentrights…areallexamplesofsuchrights.112

Theword“usufruct”isderivedfromRomanlawandmeans“thelegalrightofusing and enjoying the fruits or profits of something belonging to another.”SinceRomeclaimedownership toeverything,peoplehad toapplyfor“rights”whichtheywouldneverbeabletoownoutright.Suchrightscanberevokedbytheowneratanytime.In 1976, Trilateral Commission memberCarla A. Hills said the following

aboutlandandpropertyrights:Land,becauseofitsuniquenatureandthecrucialrole it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset,controlledby individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of themarket. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulationand concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if

unchecked,itmaybecomeamajorobstacleintheplanningandimplementationof development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, theprovisionofdecentdwellingsandhealthyconditionsforthepeoplecanonlybeachievediflandisusedintheinterestsofsocietyasawhole.113

Theconsistentuseoftheword“usufruct”indocumentssuchastheGBAserveto explain why the Federal government is rushing to lock up as much as 50percentofalltheavailablelandintheUnitedStates.Forthosepropertyownerswhowill not sell, their property rights are then diminished to the pointwheretheirpropertyhasnoremainingvalueinthemarket.Population Control It is stating the obvious that all economic activityultimatelydependsonpeopleasconsumers.Peoplebuythingsforsurvivaland for pleasure. Increasing population has afforded economic growth inAmericasincethedayitwasfoundedin1776.Agenda21andGBAdeclarethat in order to put resources back into balance with current humanconsumption,therewillhavetobeasignificantshrinkageinpopulation:AreasonableestimateforanindustrializedworldsocietyatthepresentNorthAmerican material standard of living would be one billion. At the morefrugalEuropeanstandardofliving,2-3billionwouldbepossible.114

Thereareapproximately7.2billionpeopleontheplanettoday.WhiletheGBAdoesnot suggestways toget ridof5-6billionpeopleoutright, itdoessuggestthatwemustlowerourstandardoflivingtothepointofbeinginbalancewithwhat they think the environment can supply to us. In 1804, global populationwasonebillionpeople.ExtrapolatingconsumptionpercapitabacktothatlevelwouldalmostsatisfytheGBA’scriteria.Ofcourse,thatwouldbeaneconomicdisasterbecause95%ofallcommercialenterpriseswouldbeputoutofbusiness,andthosethatremainwouldbeshrunkenbeyondrecognition.

InformationmanagementAsdocumentedintheTechnocracyStudyCoursein1934,threeoftheoriginal

requirementswere:

ProvideacontinuousinventoryofallproductionandconsumptionProvideaspecificregistrationofthetype,kind,etc.,ofallgoodsandservices,whereproducedandwhereusedProvide specific registration of the consumption of each individual,plusarecordanddescriptionoftheindividual.115

ItisnotsurprisingtoseethisexactTechnocracy-inspiredterminologyturnupin the A21 document: Expand or promote databases on production andconsumption and develop methodologies for analyzing them… Assess therelationship between production and consumption, environment, technologicaladaptionand innovation,economicgrowthanddevelopment,anddemographicfactors…Identifybalancedpatternsofconsumptionworldwide.116

Other things that have been deemed unsustainable by A21 and the GBAincludethingslikepowerlineconstruction,harvestingtimber,hunting,damsandreservoirs,automobiles, fencingoffpasture,private landownership,grazingoflivestock,livestock,electricappliances,ruralliving,pavedroads,railroads,andaplethoraofothers.Anyactivitytoexpandactivitiesintheseareaswillnowbemet with fierce resistance, while activity to curtail them will be praised assustainable.SustainableDevelopmentisaTrojanhorsethatlooksgoodontheoutsidebut

is filled with highly toxic and militant policies on the inside. It promises autopian dream that it cannot possibly deliver.There is no economic growth ifliving standards and consumption patterns regress back into the 1800s, or ifpopulationiscurtailed.Thereisnoeconomicsatisfactionifpeoplecannoteasilyenjoyand transfer realpropertyoraccumulatewealthandsavings.There isnopersonalsatisfactionifpeopleareconstantlyunderamicroscopeforanalysisoftheirsustainableactivity,orthelackofit.

90HubbertandScott,p.232.91GoverningCounciloftheUNEnvironmentalProgramme(UNEP),“GreenEconomy”,(UnitedNations,2009),p.2.92Fischer-Kowalski,Swilling,et.al,“Decoupling:NaturalResourceUseandEnvironmentalImpactsFromEconomicGrowth”,(InternationalResourcePanel,2011),p.5.93Seehttp://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/page94Ibid.95Hubbert&Scott,p.49.96Ibid.

97UNSecretary-General,“MarkingHistoricDonationtotheLeagueofNationsLibrary-HailsRockefellerFoundation’s‘GlobalPhilanthropy’”,September2,2012.98EarthCharter,UNESCO,(http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/img/02_earthcharter.pdf).99“SustainableDevelopment:FromBrundtlandtoRio2012”,UnitedNationsHeadquarters,2010.100Ibid.101Seewww.TheElders.org.102“EARTHSUMMIT:ClintonBlastsBushforU.S.‘Holdout’inRio”,LosAngelesTimes,June13,1992.103President’sCouncilonSustainableDevelopment,SustainableAmerica:ANewConsensus(Washington,DC:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice,February1996),p.2.104CrescenciaMaurer,TheU.S.President’sCouncilonSustainableDevelopment:ACaseStudy,September1998.105J.GaryLawrence,“TheFutureofLocalAgenda21intheNewMillennium”,TheMillemiumPapersIssue2,1998,p.5.106Agenda21,p.265.107Agenda21,p.21108“U.N.ConferenceonHumanSettlements”,HabitatI,1976,p.6,Item14.109VernonHeywood,ed,GlobalBiodiversityAssessment,(CambridgeUniversityPress1996),p.943.110BruceBabbitt,“TheDawnofDamRemoval”,Patagonia,2012.111GBA,p.755112GBA,Sec.12.7.5.113Ibid.114BGA,11.2.3.2.115Hubbert&Scott,p.232.116Agenda21,p.32.

SCHAPTER5

TRANSFORMINGGOVERNMENTOCIETYISBUILTONTHREELEGS:ECONOMICS,POLITICSAND

RELIGION.THESETHREEMUSTBEMUTUALLY

COMPATIBLEORTHESOCIETYWILLNOTLASTLONG,ANDTHEDUSTBINOFHISTORYHASPLENTYOFEXAMPLESOFSOCIETIESTHATFAILEDWHEN

DIVISIONSETIN.DURINGTHETRANSITIONFROMCAPITALISMTOTECHNOCRACY,TODAY’SMODERN

SOCIETYAPPEARSTOBEDYSFUNCTIONALANDIRRATIONAL.THEUNDERLYINGREALITYISTHATAS

THESOCIETALMODELMORPHSINTOTECHNOCRACY,NOTHINGISCLEARTOTHOSEWHO

TRYTOUNDERSTANDTHEWORLDUSINGTRADITIONALANDOUTDATEDCONCEPTS.THE

READERHASALREADYDISCOVEREDHOWRADICALLYDIFFERENTTHE“GREEN”ECONOMYIS

COMPAREDTOTRADITIONALPRICE-BASEDECONOMICTHEORY.NOWWEMUSTEXPLOREHOWMANAGEMENTOFSOCIETYWILLBECONDUCTEDBYTECHNOCRATS,ANDHOWTHATDIFFERSFROM

TRADITIONALPOLITICALCONCEPTSOFA

GOVERNMENTWHICHIS,INTHEFAMOUSWORDSOFABRAHAMLINCOLNATTHEGETTYSBURG

ADDRESS,“OFTHEPEOPLE,BYTHEPEOPLEANDFORTHEPEOPLE”.

In America, government has traditionally been based on geographicalboundaries.Acityhas“citylimits”,acountyhasa“countyline”andastatehasborders. Within those geographical limits, the citizens exercise politicalautonomytocreatewhateverkindoflifetheywanttoenjoy,andeachgroupingof citizens must determine how to best run its own infrastructure, education,healthcare,socialservices,etc.Technocracy turns this concept on its head by dissolving sovereign borders

while calling for a system of governance based on Functional Sequence thatremovesasegmentofresponsibilityfromthelowerpoliticalentityandawardsitto a higher level. To an engineer like M. King Hubbert (co-founder ofTechnocracy, Inc. in1934), thiswasaperfectlynaturaland“efficient”wayofviewing the Technate, or the individual unit of Technocracy that containedcitizens.AccordingtoHubbert then,Thebasicunitof thisorganizationis theFunctionalSequence.AFunctionalSequenceisoneof the larger industrialorsocial units, the various parts ofwhich are related one to the other in a directfunctionalsequence.Thus among the major Industrial Sequences we have transportation (rail-roads,waterways,airways,highwaysandpipelines);communication(mail,telephone,telegraph,radioandtelevision);agriculture(farming,ranching,dairying,etc.);andthemajorindustrialunitssuchastextiles,ironandsteel,etc.Among the Service Sequences are education (this would embrace thecomplete trainingof theyoungergeneration),andpublichealth(medicine,dentistry, public hygiene, and all hospitals and pharmaceutical plants aswellasinstitutionsfordefectives).113[Emphasisadded]Furthermore, Hubbert envisioned the appointed head of each Functional

SequenceasbelongingtoacontinentalboardofdirectorswhichitselfwouldbeheadedbyaContinentalDirector.Foreachofthese“functions”,therewouldbeno democratic discussion or vote because the engineering expert-in-charge

knows best how to run things by applying logic and efficiency. Furthermore,even though local control is promised for a myriad of other issues, theseFunctional Sequences would bemerely provided as services to the individualTechnates.It is not a stretch to correlateHubbert’s vision tomodern implementationof

Functional Sequences such as health care (Obamacare), control over water(Army Corps of Engineers), land (Councils of Governments), agriculturalpractices (Bureau of Land Management), education (Common Core), energy(Department of Energy, Smart Grid), transportation (Metropolitan PlanningOrganizations),emergencymanagement(FEMA)andsoon.Notlongago,allofthese functions were under local or personal control within the context oftraditional geographic boundaries such as cities, towns, counties and states.Atown, for instance,hada locally-electedschoolboard that seteducationpolicyforitself.Emergencymanagementwasmanagedbyafireboardorcitycouncil.Landusewasdeterminedbyanelectedzoningboard.Hubbert’s above reference to “institutions for defectives” is disturbing and

shows evidence of his strong views on eugenics as a necessary FunctionalSequence. Apparently, the inefficiencies of defectives and their high cost ofmaintenancearenottobetoleratedinasystemthatstrivesforperfectefficiency.InCalifornia,whereTechnocracy,Inc.founditslargestsupport,eugenicswasinitsheydayduringthe1930swhereover20,000men,womenandchildrenweredeemed defective and were subsequently sterilized by force. This is a darkhistoryofCalifornia,bytheway,butIcanpersonallyattesttotherealityofit.Thiswriterwasadoptedatbirthbyawomanwhohadbeen forcibly sterilizedbecauseherolderbrotherwasdeemedtobegenetically“retarded”.Afewyearslater, itwas determined that her brotherwas not retarded at all, but had beendeprived of oxygen at birth, thus producing brain damage. An investigativearticle written in 2012 byCNNHealth stated, Thirty-two states had eugenicsprograms,butCaliforniawasinaleagueofitsown…InCalifornia,theeugenicsmovementwasledbyfiguressuchasDavidStarrJordan,presidentofStanfordUniversity, and Harry Chandler, publisher of the Los Angeles Times….California’smovementwassoeffectivethatinthe1930s,membersoftheNaziparty asked California eugenicists for advice on how to run their ownsterilizationprogram.”GermanyusedCalifornia’sprogramasitschiefexamplethat thiswasaworking,successfulpolicy,”Cogdell said.“Theymodeled theirlawonCalifornia’slaw.”114

Shamefully for California, its eugenics and forced sterilization program

continuedtooperateuntil1963.Onanationalandglobalscale,eugenicsisstillalive and well, most often associated with the population control policies putforthbyAgenda21.As mentioned earlier in this book, PresidentBill Clinton signed Executive

Order12862onSeptember11,1993 that formalized theNationalPerformanceReview (NPR) which was headed up by Al Gore. NPR was later moreaccurately renamed theNationalPartnership forReinventingGovernment.TheintellectualworkthatbroughtClintonandGoretotakeactionwasabooktitledReinventingGovernmentbyOsborneandGaebler.ThebookwaspublishedonFebruary 1, 1993 and reviewed as follows on May 1, 1993: In ReinventingGovernment,DavidOsborneandTedGaeblerattempttochartacoursebetweenbig government and laissez faire. They want nothing to do with “ideology”.Rather,OsborneandGaebleraretechnocratsinsearchofpragmaticanswers.“ReinventingGovernment,”theywrite,“addresseshowgovernmentswork,notwhatgovernmentsdo.”Thus,fromthestandpointofwhatgovernmentsdo,thebook isaproverbialgrabbagofpolicyprescriptions, somegood,somebad.115[Emphasisadded]Yes, you read that right: They were “technocrats in search of pragmatic

answers.” Osborne and Gaebler were completely in tune with historicTechnocracy by focusing on “how governments work, not what governmentsdo”. In fact, Technocrats havenever cared about political ideology, but ratheronly about the best andmost efficient solutions to any problem that could bedescribed in engineering terms. Thus, historic Technocracy gave themconvenient license to tackle the Functional Sequences of government inwaysnot previously seen.Historians have already creditedOsborne andGaebler asbeing the singular inspiration behind Clinton’s Partnership on ReinventingGovernment,butthefactthattheyweretechnocratsgivesadifferentperspectiveonthematter.Indeed,theysetthecourseforreinventinggovernmentalongthelinesofFunctionalSequencesthatwouldsupportandincentivizethereinventedeconomic system of Technocracy, also described as the “green economy” ofSustainableDevelopment.Vice President Al Gore chose David Osborne to be his senior advisor in

running the National Performance Review, and he subsequently became theprincipal author of the NPR report that Time Magazine allegedly called “themostreadablefederaldocumentinmemory”.Clinton’s programwas so impressive that by 1999, itwas picked up by the

United Nations as a global program under the auspices of the U.N. Public

AdministrationProgramme (UNPAP). In adocument titledTheGlobalForumonReinventingGovernment,UNPAPdescribeswhathappenedasfollows:TheGlobal Forumwas first organized by theGovernment of theUnited States in1999.Sincethen,ithasemergedasoneofthemostsignificantglobaleventstoaddressgovernmentreinvention.SubsequentforumshavebeenorganizedbytheGovernments of Brazil, Italy, Morocco, Mexico, and the Republic of Korea,respectively. During the 6th Global Forum held in Seoul in May 2005, theUnitedNationsUnder-Secretary-General invited participants to the 7thGlobalForumtobeheldattheUNHeadquarters.116

This further confirms the global push toward Technocracy becausegovernments throughout theworldmustbesimilarly transformedif theyare tobecompatiblewithanenergy-basedeconomicsystemrunbytechnocratsandnotbyelectedofficials.Essentially, the goal of reinventing government was to convert from a

bureaucratic toabusinessmodelofgovernance.WhenClintonfirstannouncedhis initiative inMarch1993,hestated,“Ourgoal is tomake theentire federalgovernmentlessexpensiveandmoreefficient,andtochangethecultureofournationalbureaucracyawayfromcomplacencyandentitlement toward initiativeandempowerment.”117The first three -cuttingexpenses, improvingefficiency,encouraging initiative - canbe seen as the typicalmantra ofTechnocracy, but“empowerment”needssomeexplanation.In a corporate sense, empowerment refers to a results-orientedculturewhere

authoritytodecidehowtocompleteagivenoutcomeispusheddownthechainofcommandtothelowestlevelofmanagement.Whenseniormanagersdeclarea certain strategy for their organization, that strategy is broadcast to theorganization with instructions to “get it done” by whatever means they canemploy.Whateverthemissionis,theremightbedifferentwaystoactlocallyindifferentsettingstoachievethecommonoutcome.This isradicallydifferentfromabureaucraticstructure thatoperateswithina

structureoflawsimposedbyelectednational,stateorlocallegislativebodies.ItmustberememberedthattheUnitedStateswasfoundedasaRepublicbasedontheRuleofLaw.Government servantswere toupholdand implement the lawandwere not allowed to act outside of those legal bounds nomatterwhat thesetting.Entiregovernmentorganizationsaswellasallof theiremployeeswereboundby the same laws, tobe interpreted in the sameway inevery issueandpractice.The newly reinvented system of governance puts its emphasis on

implementing regulations rather than on enforcing laws. If legal obstacles areencountered, the organization is empowered to take whatever pragmaticapproach they can devise to skirt the law in favor of the regulation. Ifempowermentmeanspragmatism,which it does, then it fits perfectlywith theother Technocratic goals that Clinton expressed. The theoretical result ofemphasizingregulationsoverlawsisalawlessgovernmentandcouldhavebeenrecognizedassuchin1993.Howdoesthisworkinpractice?Modernexamplesareallaroundus,butnone

better than the breakdown of our southern border with Mexico. Section 4 ofArticle IVof theU.S.Constitutionstates,TheUnitedStatesshallguarantee toeveryState in thisUnionaRepublicanFormofGovernment,andshallprotecteachof themagainstInvasion;andonApplicationof theLegislature,orof theExecutive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domesticViolence.Inaddition,therearemanyspecificlawsthatstateexactlyhowtheborderisto

be set up,who is allowed to enter, and underwhat terms and conditions.TheExecutiveBranch,ontheotherhand,choosesnot toenforcethelawbutratherenforces its own regulations evenwhen they are contrary to the law. In 2012,PresidentObamadirectedtheDepartmentofHomelandSecuritytoimplementanewnon-deportationpolicy expressed in the formof regulations.This quicklyprompteda lawsuitby ImmigrationCustomsandEnforcement (ICE)agents toblockthepoliciesbecauseitforcedthemtobreakthelawandtheConstitution:Thelawsuit,filedinfederalcourtintheNorthernDistrictofTexas,arguesthattheadministrationpoliciesfailtopassmusteronthreegrounds:TheyinfringeonCongress’righttosetimmigrationpolicy,theyforceICEagentstodisregardthe1996 law, and the Homeland Security Department didn’t follow the federalAdministrativeProcedureAct,whichrequiresagenciestowriteregulationsandputthemoutforpubliccommentbeforetakingbigsteps.118

In another matter on July 28, 2014, all Republican members of the TexasHouse and Senate signed a letter to President Obama asking him to enforceexisting lawon immigration.U.S.RepresentativeLamarSmith (R-TX) stated,“The President has it in his power right now, if he were to enforce currentimmigrationlaws,tostopthissurgecomingacrosstheborder.”119

TosaythattheU.S.BorderwithMexicoisbecomingalawlesswastelandisanunderstatement. Illegal entrants flood all sections of the border, knowing theodds of being detained are virtually nil. Many even walk through bordercheckpoints with impunity, knowing that border agents will not stop them.

Requiredmedicalscreeningandcriminalbackgroundchecksarenotperformed,andstateddestinationsarenotverified.Bordersecuritymaybeanextremeexampleofan“empowered”government,

butitrevealstheattitudeandpracticeofTechnocratswhofeelthattheirsystemof regulations and outcomes are more important than standing laws, sittingCongressional representatives and the Constitution. Someone may argue thatthingslikethishappenedpriortoClinton’sinitiativetoreinventgovernment,towhich I would answer, “Yes, there were instances of very bad governmentbehaviorinthepast,butnowithasbecomethenorm.”Intheend,theExecutiveandLegislativeBranchesofourgovernmentwillbenose-to-noseinabattleofwilltoseewhogetstocalltheshots.Theoldsayingthat“Possessionisnine-tenthsofthelaw”isfalse,butitserves

tomakethispoint:ThePresidentisCEOover2.2millionFederalworkersandhas autonomous control over how the annual budget is allocated and spent.Congresshas635members.Who isgoing towinwhenpushcomes to shove?Wealreadyknowtheanswer to thisquestion,as theExecutiveBranchalreadytreatsCongresswithcompletedisregardandimpunity,enforcinglawsitwantstoenforcewhileignoringlawsitdoesnotwanttoenforce.EvenmorealarmingisthealmosttotaldisregardfortheU.S.Constitution.In the end, reinventing government is about creating and implementing a

systemofmanagementcontrol found inmajorglobalcorporations. Just like inthecorporateworld, there isnoroomfordisobedienceordissent.Compliance,conformity and loyalty to the corporatemission statement are all thatmatters.Unlikepeople,corporationsdon’thaveasoul;theyexistsolelytomakeaprofitfor their stockholders.But the government doesn’t have stockholders, does it?Let’sexaminethatquestionmoreclosely.TheAllianceforRedesigningGovernment(ARG)isanon-profit (NGO)that

wasfoundedtocreatealearningnetworkforchangeagentsingovernmentatalllevels for the express purpose of reinventinggovernment. IBMpartneredwiththe ARG to provide the technology for a comprehensive distance-learningsystem that would distribute volumes of information to every corner of thenation.FinancialsupportersatthetopofthelistincludedAndersonConsulting,AT&T,GeneralElectric,GoldmanSachs andCo., IBM,NYNEX, andXerox.Philanthropic donations poured in from ARCO Foundation, Aspen Institute,Carnegie Corporation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Ford Foundation, JohnD.and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, and theRockefeller Foundation, among others. The Board of Advisors included

Trilateral Commission members Sen.William Roth (R-Delaware) and JohnSweeney,presidentoftheAFL-CIO.The Alliance then formally introduced the Public-Private Partnerships as a

tool-of-choice for economic development. According to its own literature,Partnershipsbetweengovernmentagenciesandprivatefor-profitandnon-profitorganizationshaveproventobeaneffectivetoolforplanningandimplementingprograms. Public-private partnerships have beenworking effectively formanyyears. Susan and Norma Fainstein in their research of “Public-PrivatePartnerships for Urban (Re) Development in the United States” note that theoriginalfederalurbanrenewallegislationin1949providedforlocallyoperatedredevelopment authorities (public agencies) to acquire land using powers ofeminent domain and then to sell the land at a reduced price to privatecorporationsfordevelopment.[Ed.Note:thisisthescheme]As economic growth has slowed and government resources have becomemorelimited,public-privatepartnershipshaveformedtoundertakeprojectsthathadpreviouslybeenfundedbythefederalgovernment.TheFainsteins’researchindicatesthatduringtheyearswhenRonaldReaganwaspresident,thefederalgovernmentbeganapolicyofdecentralizationandderegulation.Funding for many categorical entitlement urban development and socialservice programswas eliminated and block grantswere provided to statesand localities to be used at their discretion.At that time, the Fainsteins’report,theuseofpublic-privatepartnershipschangedinnature.[Ed.Note:Thisishowtheschemeisimplemented]Privatefor-profitandnot-forprofitcorporations began to negotiate partnerships undertaking economicdevelopment and affordable housing rehabilitation and constructionprojects in exchange for tax incentives, subsidies, or future profits.120[Emphasisadded]Doesthegovernmenthavestockholders?Absolutely!Globalcorporationsand

banks, NGOs and globalist foundations. Furthermore, they expect a return ontheir investments, namely, privatized “sweetheart” deals that lock outcompetitors. Inmanycases, thisgives the“private”partyamonopolyover theservicesoffered.Citizensareonlyseenasconsumers.Priortothe1993Clinton/Goreinitiative,thegoalofgovernmentwastoserve

the people. Now the goal is not to serve the people but rather to serve itsstockholders. Previously, the goal was to facilitate a price-based, free-marketeconomicsystem.Nowthegoalistofacilitateanenergy-basedgreeneconomypredicatedonSustainableDevelopmentandAgenda21policies.

The bottom line is that our Federal government, as represented by theExecutiveBranchandallofitsagencies,nolongerrepresentsthecitizensofthenation, and that is why Congress and the Constitution have been effectivelyneutered.Lastly,weseethecleartrailofTrilateralCommissionmembersfromstarttofinish.

TransformingEducationThis topic could enjoy its own chapter heading, but the discussion is placed

here because education is controlled by the government and has beentransformed by it along with all the other Functional and Service Sequencesdiscussedabove.The1930sTechnocracyStudyCoursehadmuchtosayabouteducation,andit

pointedly explainswhymodern technocrats haveundertaken the systemizationofeducationinAmericaundersuchprogramsasNoChildLeftBehindandmorerecently, Common Core. While we explored the concept of FunctionalSequencesearlierinthischapter,moreneedstobesaidaboutServiceSequencessuchaseducationandhealthcarewhichwereseenascloselyalignedwitheachother for the sake of running a perfectly efficient society. That Technocracyproposedcompletecontrolovereducationisseeninstatementslike,AmongtheServiceSequencesareeducation(thiswouldembracethecompletetrainingoftheyoungergeneration),andpublichealth(medicine,dentistry,publichygiene,and all hospitals and pharmaceutical plants as well as institutions fordefectives).121[Emphasisadded]Theideaof“complete”pointstosocialconditioningfrombirthtothepointof

enteringtheworkforceandbeyondintheformofadulteducation.Justastoday’spublichealthisacradle-to-graveServiceSequence,soalsoiseducation,fortheTechnocratssawthementalstateofthelearnerasafunctionofhisconditioning.Thus, educational conditioning and health care became inseparable disciplineswhichcouldservesocietyonlytogetherinapermanentlysymbioticfashion.Thejointrecord-keepingdesignisseeninstatementslikethis:Thereis, likewise,acompleterecordonallhospitals,ontheeducationalsystem,amusements,andothersonthemorepurelysocialservices.Thisinformationmakesitpossibletoknowexactlywhat todo at all times inorder tomaintain theoperationof thesocialmechanismatthehighestpossibleloadfactorandefficiency.122

ThereisnoroomforhumanindividualityinTechnocracywheretheonlygoalisto“maintaintheoperationofthesocialmechanismatthehighestpossibleloadfactorandefficiency.”However,humansarenotmerelymachines,andneitherissociety.Theyarenottobevaluedonlybywhattheyproduceorhowefficientlytheyproduceit.Andyet,Technocracypersistedintheoutcome-basedmentalitywhere all of society (and people therein) would be measured, analyzed,correlated, corrected and conditioned from cradle to grave. I have purposelyused the term “outcome-based” to emphasizewhere thismodern term used in

educational circles came from. Outcome-based society demands an outcome-based educational system. However, it is not really education at all. It is aconditioning no different than training a dog or other animal to repeat a taskbasedonsomepredeterminedstimulus. Inherentabilitybeyondperforming thetask is superfluous.Technocracy, Inc. couldnothavebeenmoreclearon this:The end products attained by a high-energy social mechanism on the NorthAmerican Continent will be (a) a high physical standard of living, (b) a highstandardofpublichealth,(c)aminimumofunnecessarylabor,(d)aminimumofwastage of non-replaceable resources, (e) an educational system to train theentireyoungergenerationindiscriminatelyasregardsallconsiderationsotherthan inherent ability—a Continental system of human conditioning.123[Emphasisadded]Fast-forward again to 1992 and the Agenda 21 document that also deals

extensively with education in Chapter 36. It starts out by stating: Education,raising of public awareness and training are linked to virtually all areas inAgenda21,andevenmorecloselytotheonesonmeetingbasicneeds,capacity-building,dataandinformation,science,andtheroleofmajorgroups.124

Itthenfollowsupwiththeinitialsubjecttitle,Reorientingeducationtowardssustainable development, which mirrors the earlier document: Education,includingformaleducation,publicawarenessandtrainingshouldberecognizedas a process by which human beings and societies can reach their fullestpotential. Education is critical for promoting sustainable development andimproving thecapacityof thepeople toaddressenvironmentanddevelopmentissues.Whilebasiceducationprovides theunderpinningforanyenvironmentaland development education, the latter needs to be incorporated as an essentialpart of learning… It is also critical for achieving environmental and ethicalawareness,valuesandattitudes,skillsandbehaviorconsistentwithsustainabledevelopment and for effective public participation in decision-making. To beeffective, environment and development education should deal with thedynamicsofboth thephysical/biological and socio-economic environment andhuman (whichmay include spiritual)development, shouldbe integrated in alldisciplines, and should employ formal and non-formal methods and effectivemeansofcommunication.125

Thiswas a grand scheme ofAgenda 21, but one forwhich it had no directmeans of developing or implementing; it merely pointed out that reformingeducationiscriticaltotheimplementationofAgenda21initsentirety.LaterinChapter 36, the solution is suggested: Countries, assisted by international

organizations, non-governmental organizations and other sectors, couldstrengthen or establish national or regional centres of excellence ininterdisciplinary research and education in environmental and developmentalsciences, law and the management of specific environmental problems.126[Emphasisadded]Thus,whensinglenationsareunable to reformeducationby themselves, the

task should be turned over to international organizations (e.g., the UnitedNations) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This is precisely whathappened when the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation decided to fund thecreation of the Common Core State Standards that would be implementedthroughout the states and into every grade in every school in America. Theresultingsetofstandardswas jointlycopyrightedbytwoprivateorganizations,as stated on the CoreStandards.org web site: Please be advised that anypublication or public displaymust include the following notice: “©Copyright2010NationalGovernorsAssociationCenterforBestPracticesandCouncilofChiefStateSchoolOfficers.Allrightsreserved.”127[Emphasisadded]On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American

RecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009(ARRA),whichwasthemajoreconomicstimulus bill designed to pull the economy out of a near-collapsed condition.Initially funded to the tune of $787 billion, $4.35 billion was allotted for acompetitive education grant program called “Race to theTop”. For states thatqualified,andalldid,fundswerepouredoutlikewatertothefinancially-stressedstates.Ofcourse,stringswereattached,butatthetimetheyacceptedthefunds,thestateswerenottoldexactlywhattheythosestringswere.Therewerehints:

Adoptingstandardsandassessmentsthatpreparestudentstosucceedincollegeandtheworkplaceandtocompeteintheglobaleconomy;Buildingdatasystemsthatmeasurestudentgrowthandsuccess,andinform teachers and principals about how they can improveinstruction.128

Infact,thestatesunwittinglysignedontoaccepttheentiretyofCommonCoreState Standards that were still under development by private organizations,funded by private donations. When the publishing date arrived, it was theNationalGovernorsAssociationandtheCouncilofChiefStateSchoolOfficerswhotrottedoutthisTrojanhorseandsimultaneouslyletdownthestairwayin46states.Aswordbegantotrickleouttoparentswhathadhappened,agroundswell

ofresistancesuddenlyappearedandcontinuestothepresent.Somestateshavesubsequentlypassedlegislation tobanCommonCorealtogether.Manyparentspulledtheirkidsoutofgovernmentschoolsinfavorofhomeschoolingbutarestill in a dilemma: the SAT tests necessary for college entrance have alreadybeenredesignedtotestforCommonCorematerial.Not surprisingly, the Common Core curriculum is focused squarely on

SustainableDevelopmentandBiodiversity issueswithanover-the-top layerofsexualcontent.Whatwasformerlyclassedaseducationisnowtransformedintoindoctrinationandconditioning,or training.This is an importantdistinction tograsp: Humans receive education but animals receive training. But to thetechnocratmindset,humansareonlyanimalsandthusshouldbetrainedaswell.Inanycase,adoptingstandardsandbuildingdatasystemsarethetoppriorities

that the states signed on for. As mentioned above, Technocracy couplededucationwithhealthcare.ItisalsonotsurprisingthatObamacareandCommonCoreare tightlycoupled in theareaofdatacollection.CommonCore requiresmassive data collection of up to 400 data points per student, whereas theAffordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”) requires comprehensive andongoing data collectionwithout limitation.But is there any direct relationshipbetweenCommonCoreandObamacare?Yes!UnderSubtitleB,Section4101of theAffordableCareAct, agrantprogram

wasauthorizedfortheestablishmentofschool-basedhealthcenters(SBHC).PROGRAM.—The Secretary of Health and Human Services (in thissubsection referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall establish a program toaward grants to eligible entities to support the operation of school-basedhealthcenters.129

Essentially,thisisamergingoftheschoolwiththehealthcaresystem,andtheACA clearly explains the details for delivery of health services, but moreimportantly, the integrationofdatacollection:Sec.399Z-1 (A).PHYSICAL. -Comprehensive health assessments, diagnosis, and treatment ofminor, acute,and chronic medical conditions, and referrals to, and follow-up for, specialtycare and oral health services Sec. 399Z-1 (B).MENTALHEALTH. -Mentalhealthandsubstanceusedisorderassessments,crisisintervention,counseling,treatment, and referral to a continuum of services including emergencypsychiatric care, community support programs, in-patient care, and outpatientprograms.130[Emphasisadded]The term “assessment” refers to comprehensive collection of data and if

anyone would doubt that, this phrase will remove all doubt:“the SBHCwill

comply with Federal, State, and local laws concerning patient privacy andstudentrecords.”131

AlldatacollectedfromK-1throughK-12willbeassociatedwiththestudentfor life, and since it is collected during “assessments” by largely unqualifiedpersonnel,thestudentwillbeforevertaintedbythecollector’sopinions.Thisisnotonlywrong-headed,butitispatentlydangerousfortheindividualaswellassociety as a whole; there are no provisions to correct or appeal data wronglyenteredordatabasedonbadopinions.IhavepubliclystatedmanytimesthatObamacareisnotabouthealthcarebut

about collecting data. The same is true of Common Core. It is not abouteducation but rather about collecting data. Now that these two branches ofServiceFunctionshavebeenfusedtogether,yetanotherkeycriteriaoforiginalTechnocracy has been fully met. Themachine that will train the future workforcenowhastheperfectmonitoringandcontrolsysteminplacethatwillenableittofunction.

113HubbertandScott,p.218.114“California’sdarklegacyofforcedsterilizations”,CNNHealth,March15,2002115FranklinHarris,Jr.,“ReinventingGovernment”,Freeman,May11993.116UNPublicAdministrationProgramme,TheGlobalForumonReinventingGovernment,(http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan026997.pdf).117BreulandKamensky,“FederalGovernmentReform:LessonsfromClinton’s‘ReinventingGovernment’andBush’s‘ManagementAgenda’Initiatives”,PublicAdministrationReviewVol.68,No.6,(Nov.-Dec.,2008),pp.1009-1026.118“ImmigrationagentssuetostopObama’snon-deportationpolicy”,WashingtonTimes,August23,2012.119“TexasGOPCongressmentoObama:EnforceExistingImmigrationLaw”,WOAINewsRadio,July28,2014.120“GovernmentPartnerships”,AllianceforReinventingGovernmentwebsite,2000.121Hubbert&Scott,p.218.122Ibid.,p.232.123Ibid.124DanielSitarzed.,Agenda21:TheEarthSummitstrategytosaveourplanet,UnitedNationsConferenceonEnvironment&Development,(EarthPress,1993),Chap.36,p.320.125Ibid.126Ibid.,p.323.127CommonCorecopyrightnotice(http://www.corestandards.org).128“RacetotheTop”,ExecutiveSummary,(DepartmentofEducation,2014),(http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html).129AffordableCareAct,2009,p.1135.130Ibid.,p.1137.131Ibid.,p.1138.

ICHAPTER6

TRANSFORMINGRELIGIONTHASALREADYBEENSTATEDTHATSOCIETYRESTSONTHREE

IDENTICALPILLARS:ECONOMICS,POLITICSANDRELIGION.TOTHEEXTENTTHATTHEYARE

COMPATIBLEWITHEACHOTHER,ASOCIETYWILL

PROSPER.LIKEWISE,SOCIETYWILLFALTERTOTHEEXTENTOFDISHARMONYOROUTRIGHTREMOVAL

OFONEORMOREPILLARS.INAMERICA,ALLTHREEAREASAREUNDERATTACKATTHESAMETIME.ITIS

THEREFORENOWONDERTHATSOCIETYISSTRAININGATTHESEAMS,ORTHATITSEEMSSODIFFERENTTODAYCOMPAREDTO40YEARSAGO.

Our existing price-based economic system is being reinvented withnew and untested “green” economic theories that decouple resourceusefromeconomicgrowth.OurpoliticalsystemofConstitutionalRuleofLawisbeingreplacedby a system of autocratic regulations, created and enforced byunelectedandunaccountableTechnocrats.Our moral system of Judeo-Christian ethics has been consistentlyexcluded from government, with a seemingly impenetrable barrierplaced between church and state and is being replaced with ahumanisticreligionbasedonScientism.

Having a Constitution that was originally based on principles of BiblicalChristianity, it is therefore no wonder that respect for the Constitution hasslipped indirectproportion to respectofChristianity. JohnAdams,asignerof

theDeclarationofIndependenceandthesecondPresidentoftheU.S.,declared,Wehavenogovernmentarmedwithpowercapableofcontendingwithhumanpassionsunbridledbymoralityandreligion....Ourconstitutionwasmadeonlyforamoral and religiouspeople. It iswholly inadequate to thegovernmentofanyother.132SinceAmericahasalreadymovedonfromanysenseofanabsolutemorality

andscoffsatareligionthatwoulddaretoputconstraintsonaberrantbehavior,theConstitutiontrulyisaninadequatedocumentforthe21stcentury.ThesumofthisisthatthearchitectsofTechnocracyknewfullwellthatevery

pillarof societymustbe reinvented lest theirutopiandreamquickly falter andfail.Wehavealreadyexaminedtheeconomicandpoliticalandmustnowturntoreligiontoseehowitwillallfittogether.As discussed in the first chapter of this book, Scientism is an extension of

Positivism, which is based on a mixture of pseudo-science and empiricalscience.Itstatesthatsciencealone,withitsself-selectedpriesthoodofengineersandscientists, is theonlysourceof truthabout thenatureofman, thephysicalworldanduniversalreality.BydefinitionitrejectstheexistenceofGodandallnotions of divine truth as are found in the Bible. Since Scientism generallyundergirdsTechnocracy,wemustseehowitalsosupportspost-modernreligionandpractices.ScientismhasmuchincommonwithHumanisminthatitisexclusivelyman-

centered.Inotherwords, it isallaboutwhatmancanachievethroughhisownknowledgeandskills.This isnot tobeconfusedwithempirical sciencewheretheScientificMethod can be used to create repeatable experiments. Scientismassociates itselfwith empirical science in order to gain credibility, but it usespseudo-science to trick adherents into believing something that is false. TheOxfordDictionarydefinespseudo-scienceas“Acollectionofbeliefsorpracticesmistakenlyregardedasbeingbasedonscientificmethod.”Someofthesebeliefsand practices may appear as pure magic to the uninitiated, but they arenevertheless promoted as being “based in science” and are therefore infallibleandimmutable.What sets a philosophy apart from a cult is whether or not a priesthood is

necessary to interpret.Anyonecan learnaboutanddiscuss thephilosophiesofancient Greece for instance, and in that sense they are attainable by all.However,whenknowledgeissoobfuscatedthatitrequiresaninterpreteroranoracletoexplainittocommonpeople,apriesthoodisbornandacultisformedaroundit.Tounderstandwhat the“god”ofsciencehastosaytoday,youmust

inquireofthe“priest”ofscience,andyoumustdecidetotakehis“teachings”byfaith,evenifthereisempiricalevidencetothecontrary.HenrideSaint-Simon(1760-1825)wasalreadynotedtobetheearlyfatherof

modern Technocracy. He believed that a scientific elite would ultimately ruleoverallfacetsofsocietalaffairs.However,Saint-Simonalsohadanoutspokenposition on religion, as expressed in his 1825 work, New Christianity. Afterupbraiding both Catholics and Protestants for gross heresies against what heviewedasthe“divineprinciple”,hisconsistentdemandwasthatThemainaimwhich you should urgemen towork for is the improvement of themoral andphysicalconditionofthemostnumerousclass;andyoushouldcreateaformofsocial organization suitable for the encouragement of thiswork, and to ensurethat it has priority over all other undertakings, however important they mayseem.133

Thus,thesocialorganizationdesignedtorelievepovertyandwarwasthefirstand only important goal of religion. Itwas a great “brotherhood ofman” thatwouldsavetheworldandacallforchurchestobecome,inessence,communityorganizers. In the next paragraph, Saint-Simon revealed more compellingdetails:Nowthatthesizeoftheplanetisknown,youshouldmakethescientists,artists,andindustrialistsdrawupageneralplanofenterprisesdesignedtomakethedomainofthehumanraceasproductiveandagreeableaspossibleineveryway.134[Emphasisadded]Thismaybethefirstcalltousechurchestodrivetechnocratsforthecommon

purposeofremakingsocietyfromaholisticperspective,andcompletelyfocusedonman.By the turnof thecentury, amore formaldoctrineofHumanismhadbeendeveloped, and itwas representedby theAmericanEthicalUnionwhoselegal arm was the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). At the peak ofTechnocracyfeverin1933,“HumanistManifestoI”waspublishedandreadinpart,Scienceandeconomicchangehavedisruptedtheoldbeliefs.Religionstheworld over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditionscreatedbyavastly increasedknowledgeandexperience…Todayman’s largerunderstanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeperappreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a newstatementofthemeansandpurposesofreligion.Suchavital,fearless,andfrankreligion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactionsmayappeartomanypeopleasacompletebreakwiththepast.135

Thiswasnotananomaly.Fortyyearslaterin1973,“HumanistManifestoII”waspublishedandcontinuedthesamelineofthinking:Thenextcenturycanbe

and should be the humanistic century. Dramatic scientific, technological, andever-accelerating social and political changes crowd our awareness…. Usingtechnologywisely,wecancontrolourenvironment,conquerpoverty,markedlyreducedisease,extendourlife-span,significantlymodifyourbehavior,alterthecourseofhumanevolutionandculturaldevelopment,unlockvastnewpowers,andprovidehumankindwithunparalleledopportunityforachievinganabundantandmeaningfullife.136[Emphasisadded]In both Manifestos, one can see the early influence of Saint-Simon’s

brotherhood of man ruled by a technological elite. In the second instance,attentionmust be given to the phrase,“alter the course of human evolution”becauseitintroducesforthefirsttimetheconceptofTranshumanismwhichwillbeexploredshortlyinthechapterTransformingHumanity.By the time“HumanistManifesto III”waspublished in2003, the focuswas

sharpenedbutnotchanged:Knowledgeoftheworldisderivedbyobservation,experimentation, and rational analysis.Humanists find that science is the bestmethod for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems anddeveloping beneficial technologies…. Working to benefit society maximizesindividualhappiness…wesupporta justdistributionofnature’s resourcesandthefruitsofhumaneffortsothatasmanyaspossiblecanenjoyagoodlife.137

By now, you should see the dovetailing of purpose betweenHumanism andTechnocracy: Scientific Method, Sustainable Development, reallocation ofnature’sresources,andtheutopiangoalofeveryoneenjoyingthegoodlife.Thismerging of purpose didn’t happen by accident, and to understand it further, alookattheAspenInstituteforHumanisticStudiesisinorder.Humanism today has been “taught” throughout the business world by the

Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, particularly to the multinationalcorporation community. The major financiers of Aspen also are the majorfinanciersofTrilateralism,andasof1980,nofewerthansevenmembersoftheTrilateralCommissionwereservingontheboardofdirectors.Aspen Institute was founded in 1949 by Professor Giuseppe Borgese,

Chancellor Robert M. Hutchins (both of University of Chicago) and WalterPaepcke, a Chicago businessman. In 1957, Robert O. Anderson becamechairmanandwasitsguidingforceuntil1969.(Andersonbecameamemberofthe Trilateral Commission upon its founding in 1973.) In 1969, chairmanshipswitchedtoJosephE.Slater,amemberoftheCouncilonForeignRelationsandformerly of the Ford Foundation. In 1989, theAspen Institute forHumanisticStudiesshorteneditsnametotheAspenInstitute,perhapstosomewhatmaskits

ongoingfocusonhumanism.The two leading foundations contributing to Aspen were Atlantic-Richfield

(ARCO) and the Rockefeller Foundation. Moreover, the largest singleinstitutionalshareholderinARCOwasChaseManhattan(4.5%)andthelargestindividualshareholderwasRobertO.Andersonwhowasalsoontheboardofdirectors of Chase Manhattan Bank. Other backers represented the Morganbanking interests, indicating that the majority of financing came from theinternationalbanksinNewYorkCity,andmorespecifically,fromfoundationscontrolled by Rockefeller and Morgan interests. Another surprise donor wasrevealed to be theNational Endowment for theArts (taxpayer-funded),whichprovidedalmostone-thirdofAspen’stotalfinancingin1979.Today,fundingsourcescontinuetoincludemajorglobalistfoundationsthatare

tightly connected to members of the Trilateral Commission, including theCarnegieFoundation,FordFoundation,WilliamandFloraHewlettFoundation,DavidandLucilePackardFoundation,AlfredP.SloanFoundation,RockefellerBrothersFundand theRockefellerFoundation.Directors and trusteesover theyears have included individual Trilateral members such as John Brademas,William T. Coleman, Jr., Umberto Colombo (Italy), Robert S. Ingersol,HenryKissinger,PaulVolker,RobertMcNamara,MadeleineK.Albright,YotaroKobayashi(Japan),WalterIsaacson,GeraldM.Levin,MortimerB.Zuckermanandothers.The prestigious foreign policy arm of Aspen Institute, the Aspen Strategy

Group,listsnofewerthan14membersoftheTrilateralCommission,includingMadeleineK.Albright,GrahamAllison,ZoeBaird,RichardCooper,JohnDeutch,Dianne Feinstein,RichardHaass, JosephNye,Condoleezza Rice,StrobeTalbot,FareedZakariaandRobertZoellick.To say that Aspen Institute is a captive audience for Trilateral Commission

hegemony is anunderstatement.To realize that theyhave taughthumanism totens of thousands of top corporate executives from all over the world isstaggering.In2005,Aspen’sPresidentwasTrilateralCommissionerWalterIsaacson.His

“Letter from thePresident” stated,Theoriginal goal of theAspen Institute, inthewordsofoneof itsearliestmissionstatements,was forAmericanbusinessleaderstolifttheirsightsabovethepossessionswhichpossessthem,toconfronttheirownnatureashumanbeings, toregaincontrolover theirownhumanityby becoming more self-aware, more self-correcting and hence more self-fulfilling.

...But our core mission remains the same. We seek to foster enlightenedleadershipandopen-mindeddialogue.Throughseminars,policyprograms,conferences and leadership development initiatives, the Institute and itsinternational partners seek to promote nonpartisan inquiry and anappreciationfortimelessvalues.Wehelppeoplebecomemoreenlightenedintheirworkandenrichedintheirlives.Togetherwecanlearnoneofthekeystobeingsuccessfulinbusiness,leadership and life: balancing conflicting values in order to find commonground with our fellow citizens while remaining true to basic ideals.138[Emphasisadded]Religious buzzwords seen above include self-aware, self-correcting, self-

fulfilling, enlightened leadership, open-minded dialogue, timeless values,balancingconflictingvaluesandsoon.SomereadersmightequatesuchtermstoNewAgeEnlightenment, and thatwould be correct. In striving for pragmaticsolutions, Humanists are inclusive and intensely man-centered rather thantradition-centered. In Aspen’s case, whether anyone else knew it or not, itsreligioushumanisticagendawascloselyalignedwiththeTrilateralCommissionto implement its New International Economic Order, namely, globalTechnocracy.United Religions Initiative (URI) URI was founded in 1993 by WilliamSwing, Bishop of the Episcopal Church Diocese of California, as aninterfaith organization that sought to bind religions of theworld into onecommonorganization.Theconceptof interfaithorganizationswasnothingnew, but few had made much headway in a conflict-ridden world. Bycontrast,URIgrewataspectacularrate,upto100%peryear.Inhisbook,False Dawn, Lee Penn writes, In 2002, New Age author Neale DonaldWalschsaid that theURI is“moreglobal in scope,andmoreuniversal inreach”thanotherinterfaithorganizations,addingthat“Iamnotsurethatanyotherinterfaithorganizationcaststhatwideanet.”139

ThepeopleandorganizationswhohavedrawnclosetoURIarestriking:TheWorldEconomicForum,EarthCharterInitiative,TedTurner,FordFoundation,DeeHock(inventoroftheVISAcreditcard,founderandformerCEOofVISAInternational),MauriceStrong(CanadianbillionaireandorganizeroftheU.N.’s1992RioConference)andBillGatesamongothers.FormerSecretaryofStateand ex-Chairman of Bechtel GroupGeorge P. Shultz, also a member of theTrilateralCommission,islistedasanHonoraryChairofthePresident’scouncil.

TheURIisalsocloselyalliedwiththeUnitedNations.AtleasttwoURIsummitconferenceshavebeenheldatStanfordUniversity.Carnegie-MelonUniversityinPittsburghhostedthe2000conference.In2000,URIco-sponsoredtheWorldMillenniumPeaceSummitofReligious

and Spiritual Leaders held at the United Nations in New York City. TheSecretary-GeneralofthemeetingwasBawaJain.Aftertheconference,JainwasinterviewedbyJamesHarderofInsightOnTheNewsassaying,Whatweneedto engage in is an education factor of thedifferent religious traditions and thedifferenttheologiesandphilosophiesandpractices.Thatwouldgiveusabetterunderstanding, and then I think [we have to dealwith] the claims of absolutetruth-wewillrecognizethereisnotjustoneclaimofabsolutetruth,butthereistruth in every tradition. That is happening more and more when you havegatheringssuchasthese.140

The religions represented at the summit included Hinduism, Buddhism,Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Ba’hai, Christianity, Indigenous, Judaism,Shinto, Jainism, Sikhism, Islam and Taoism, among others, with a heavyrepresentationofeastern religions.TedTurner,whogaveakeynoteaddressattheSummit,denouncedhischildhoodChristianfaithbecause“itwasintolerantbecauseittaughtweweretheonlyonesgoingtoheaven.”WhatdoesURIhavetodowithanythingotherthanreligion?Well,hereweare

coming back around to the primary topic of this book, as stated in the URIpreamble:Weunite in responsiblecooperativeaction tobring thewisdomandvaluesofourreligions,spiritualexpressionsandindigenoustraditionstobearontheeconomic,environmental,politicalandsocialchallenges facingourEarthcommunity.141[Emphasisadded]In their document “Principles ofURI,” item10 rings out as if itwere taken

directlyoutofthebook,OurCommonFuture,thatkickedoffAgenda21atthe1992 Rio Conference:We act from sound ecological practices to protect andpreservetheEarthforbothpresentandfuturegenerations.142

URIdoesnothaveanexclusivearrangementwiththeglobalelitetopromoteinterfaithreconciliationbasedonecology,SustainableDevelopment,Agenda21or thegreeneconomy,but the reader shouldat least see thecommonpurpose,common funding and common alignment with the same global elite who areintentonreinventingtheworldforTechnocracy.

TheEarthCharterInitiativeAlthough earlier but unsuccessful calls for an Earth Charter were made by

various other people, the authoritative call came in 1987 from TrilateralCommissionmemberGroBrundtlandofNorway,theprincipalauthorofOurCommonFuturethatledtotheEarthSummitin1992.In1992,MauriceStrong,aCanadianbillionaire,wasSecretary-Generalofthe

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development that sponsoredand conducted the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro that produced the officialAgenda21documentonSustainableDevelopment.Inhisopeningstatement,hedeclared,Itis,therefore,ofthehighestimportancethatallGovernmentscommitthemselves to translate the decisions they take collectively here to nationalpolicies and practices required to give effect to them, particularlyimplementationofAgenda21.143[Emphasisadded]Mikhail Gorbachev was the last president of the Soviet U.S.S.R. before it

brokeupin1992,butheattendedStrong’sEarthSummitinthatsameyear.Soonthereafter, with encouragement from Rio delegates, he founded Green CrossInternational “to help ensure a just, sustainable and secure future for all byfosteringavalueshiftandcultivatinganewsenseofglobalinterdependenceandsharedresponsibilityinhumanity’srelationshipwithnature.”144

A common connection between Brundtland, Strong and Gorbachev was theelitistClubofRomewhereall threeweremembersandStrongandGorbachevweredirectors.Two years later in 1994, Strong and Gorbachev created The Earth Charter

which many viewed as a prototype constitution for the New World Order.Although closely associated with the United Nations, Earth Charterindoctrination ismeant to take place througheducationand religion,which isone reason that itwas strongly supported byURI. Strong himself stated,“thereal goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the TenCommandments.”145Gorbachevwasinterviewedin1996andsaid,“Cosmosismy God. Nature is my God.”146 It could not be more clear where they werecomingfrom.In1996,afterthreeinternationalconsultationsonwhattheEarthChartermight

contain, a drafting committee was formed and Steven C. Rockefeller wasappointed to lead it. Son of the late Nelson A. Rockefeller and nephew ofTrilateralCommissionfounderDavidRockefeller,Stevenwassoonappointedto be the Co-Chair of Earth Charter International Council. He became the

principal spokesperson and evangelist for theEarthCharter as itwas formallyadoptedin2000.Rockefeller was chosen because of his religious career and education. He

receivedhisMasterofDivinity from theUnionTheologicalSeminary inNewYorkCityandhisPh.D.inthephilosophyofreligionfromColumbiaUniversity.HewasProfessoremeritusofReligionatMiddleburyCollege inVermontandalsoservedasDeanoftheCollege.HisfinancialconnectiontotheRockefellerdynastywasevidentinhischairmanshipoftheRockefellerBrothersFundwherehis uncle David is director. Most importantly to this discussion, he wasChairmanoftheEarthCharterInternationalDraftingCommittee.ThefulltextoftheEarthCharterisseeninAppendixIIIofthisbook,anditis

useful to see thatmuchof the text is avirtualduplicationof ideas that sprangfromtheEarthSummitin1992andAgenda21.However,thespiritualnatureoftheEarthCharterisclearlyseenwithstatementssuchas,

Theemergenceofaglobalcivilsocietyiscreatingnewopportunitiesto build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental,economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges areinterconnected,andtogetherwecanforgeinclusivesolutions.The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media,businesses,nongovernmentalorganizations,andgovernmentsareallcalledtooffercreativeleadership.Affirm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings and in theintellectual,artistic,ethical,andspiritualpotentialofhumanity.Recognize and preserve the traditional knowledge and spiritualwisdominallculturesthatcontributetoenvironmentalprotectionandhumanwell-being.Upholdtherightofall,withoutdiscrimination,toanaturalandsocialenvironmentsupportiveofhumandignity,bodilyhealth,andspiritualwell-being.Affirmtherightofindigenouspeoplestotheirspirituality.Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritualsignificance.Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education forsustainableliving.Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual

challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusivesolutions.147

OnSeptember9,2001,justtwodaysbeforetheinfamyof9/11,acelebrationof theEarthCharterwasheld inVermontandattendedbyStevenRockefeller.TheeventrevealedanelaboratelydecoratedArkofHope,modeledlooselyafterthe Biblical Ark of the Covenant, wherein a hand-written copy of the EarthCharteronpapyruswasplacedinsidewithothersupposedlysacreditems.After9/11, the two hundred pound Ark was ceremoniously carried on foot fromVermont to the United Nations headquarters in NewYork City where it wasplacedondisplay.Thetwoninety-sixinchcarryingpoleswerereportedlymadefromunicornhornswhichwouldwardoffevil.Forthefirsttime,thereligionofthe New World Order possessed a tangible icon to be used as an object ofworship.In2005,inresponsetotheUnitedNationsdeclarationofaten-yearperiodto

be theDecade of Education for Sustainable Development, the Earth CharterInitiative published the Earth Charter Guidebook for Teachers. It wassubsequently promoted and distributed to tens of thousands of schools aroundtheworld.Theguidingphilosophyoftheteachingtoolisstatedonthefirstpage:“Affirmfaithintheinherentdignityofallhumanbeingsandintheintellectual,artistic, ethical, and spiritual potential of humanbeings.”148 The reader shouldnotethatwhileschoolsarereadyandeagertoteachHumanism,theyareblockedfrom teaching anything from the doctrines and ethical values of BiblicalChristianity.Inlikefashion,theEarthCharterInitiativehascontactedtensofthousandsof

churches around the world, persuading many to endorse and join the EarthCharter. Initiates include the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church, UnitedChurch of Christ, United Church of Canada, National Council of Churches,World Council of Churches, World YMCA, World Council of ReligionsLeaders,manyCatholicorders,andsoon.Insummary,thesethreeexamples-AspenInstitute,UnitedReligionsInitiative

and the Earth Charter - give a clear message that the global elite who areimplementing a coordinated system of Technocracy are intensely interested inpromoting a system of sustainable religion based onHumanism alongside theeconomic and governance system and thus completing their strategy for atransformedandsustainableglobalsociety.Willitwork?Itisdoubtful,butifit

does succeed, the result will be something akin toAldousHuxley’s scientificdictatorshipinhis1932bookBraveNewWorld.The“Green”WorldCouncilofChurchesTheWorldCouncilofChurches(WCC)represents349memberdenominations,whichcollectivelyrepresentover 560 million members in 110 nations. It has been a leader in theInterfaith movement as long as there has been a movement and was asignatorytotheEarthCharter.Mostimportantly,itisaprimeexampleofthenew“greentheology”beingadoptedbychurchesglobally.A founding member of the WCC is the Ecumenical Patriarchate of

Constantinople.PatriarchBartholomewsentanofficialmessagetotheInterfaithSummitonClimateChangeheldduringSeptember2014, co-sponsoredby theWCCandorganizedbytheU.N.Hestated,Eachbelieverandeachleader,eachfieldandeachdiscipline, each institutionandeach individualmustbe touchedby the call to change our greedyways and destructive habits [for the sake ofclimatejustice] ...unlesswechangethewaywelive;wecannothopetoavoidecological damage. This means that – instead of solely depending ongovernmentsandexpertsforanswers–eachofusmustbecomeaccountableforourslightestgestureandact inorder to reverse thepath thatweareon,whichwill of course also include prevailing upon governments and leaders for thecreationandapplicationofcollectivepolicyandpractice.149

TosaythattheecumenicalworldhasbeendrawnintothewebofSustainableDevelopment is an understatement. In fact, it is wholeheartedly andunequivocallydrivingtheprocessatthelocallevel,thankstotheUnitedNationsand its global push for the “green economy”ofTechnocracy.TheU.Nknowsthat its agenda would fail without such massive and grass-roots support ofreligionsaroundtheworld,andthisconferencedelivered.One observer to the conference, the Executive Director of GreenFaith,

observed, In the midst of ClimateWeek this year, the collection of religiousevents taking place in New York City around the UN Climate Summit isastounding. From the launch of the international multi-faith Our VoicesCampaignattheUNChurchCentertotheReligionsfortheEarthconferenceatUnionSeminary to thePeople’sClimateMarch,where thousandsofpeopleoffaithfromovertwentydifferentreligioustraditionswillparticipate,tothemulti-faithserviceatSt. John theDivine toanumberofother relatedfaithevents --therehasneverbeensuchalargeamountofreligious-environmentalactivityinonelocationinthehistoryoftheworld.Thisweekwillmarkawatershedin

the history of religion. It will be the time that people remember as the timewhen the world’s faiths declared themselves, irrevocably, as green faiths.150[Emphasisadded]This unabashed support for Sustainable Development did not develop

overnight,butratheraftertheconsistentploddingandconditioningoveraperiodofdecades.TheresulttodayisthecompletionofPeterDrucker’sbelovedthree-legged stool model, where politics, economics, and religion intersect with acommonagendatocreatetheutopianglobalsociety.

132JohnAdams,TheWorksofJohnAdams,SecondPresidentoftheUnitedStates,CharlesFrancisAdams,editor(Boston:Little,Brown,andCo.1854),Vol.IX,p.229,October11,1798133HenriSaint-Simon,TheNewChristianity,(1825).134Ibid.135HumanistManifestoI,TheNewHumanist,Vol.VI,No.3,1933.136HumanistManifestoII.TheHumanist,Vol.XXXIII,No.5.6,1973.137“HumanistManifestoIII”,TheHumanist,2003(http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III).138AspenInstitute,“LetterFromthePresident”,(http://www.aspeninstitute.org).

139LeePenn,FalseDawn,(SophiaPerennis,2005)p.43.140JamesHarderRadioShow,“U.N.FaithfulEyeGlobalReligion”,2000.141UnitedReligionsInitiative,AboutPage,(http://www.uri.org/about_uri).142Ibid.143MauriceStrong,“OpeningRemarks”,EarthSummit,1992.144“MissionStatement”,GreenCrossInternational,(http://www.gcint.org/our-mission).145SpeechbyMauriceStrong,EarthCharterInitiative(1996).146MikhailGorbachev,interviewonthePBSCharlieRoseShow,Oct.23,1996.147Op.Cit.148MohitMukherjee,AnEarthCharterGuidebookforTeachers,(TheEarthCharterInitiativeInternationalSecretariat,2005).149“Tosavetheearth,allmustchangetheirways,”,WorldCouncilofChurchesPressRelease,September19,2014.150“FortheGoodofOurSharedEarth:TheWorldCouncilofChurchessand‘ReligionsfortheEarth,HuffingtonPost,September10,2014.

ACHAPTER7

TRANSFORMINGLAWMERICAWASFOUNDEDUPONACONSTITUTIONTHATESTABLISHEDA

FRAMEWORKOFFORMALLAW,WHERESOCIETYWASTOBEGOVERNEDBYTHERULEOFLAWAND

NOTINDIVIDUALGOVERNMENTOFFICIALS.THELAWWASTOBECLEARTOUNDERSTANDANDTHEN

UNIFORMLYAPPLIEDTOEVERYCITIZENREGARDLESSOFRACE,RELIGION,CREEDOR

ECONOMICACHIEVEMENT.INFACT,THEPHRASE“EQUALJUSTICEUNDERLAW”IS

ENGRAVEDONTHEFRONTOFTHEU.S.SUPREME

COURTBUILDINGINWASHINGTON,D.C.TheglobalizationprocesstoestablishtheNewInternationalEconomicOrder,

orGreenEconomy,wassimplynotpossibleifitweretoberuledbylawandnotmen.Infact,theadvanceofglobaltransformationcouldnothavetakenplaceatallamidstthemyriadoflegalsystemsthatarefoundwithinthenation-statesofthe world unless there was some new supra-national legal theory that wascapable of either trumping or subverting those various legal systems. Manycorporations, for instance, conduct business in one state where their activitiesandpractices are completely legal; butwhen they conduct business in anothercountry,thosesamepracticesmaybedeclaredillegal.Thus,thetransformationof law became necessary in order to enable the rise of the TrilateralCommission’s New International Economic Order and Technocracy. In theprocess,thisunfortunatelycrushedtheU.S.ConstitutionandturnedtheRuleofLawupside-down.Otherformerlysovereignnationsareinthesameboat.

Thesiren-callofglobalizationis“self-regulation”ofindustriesandtrade.ThebankingindustryinNewYorkwantstobeself-regulated.Thesecuritiesindustrywants to be self-regulated. The oil industry wants to be self-regulated. TheWorldTradeOrganization(WTO)isanexpressionofself-regulation.Whatdoesself-regulationmean? In essence, itmeans that national authorities backed bynationallawshouldkeeptheirhandsintheirownpocketsandlettheseindustriestakecareoftheirownpolicies,regulations,lawsandpolicing.Thenewlegal theorytoaccomplishthis iscalled“ReflexiveLaw”.Theterm

wasoriginallycoinedin1982byaGermanlegalscholar,GuntherTeubner.TheGermanLawJournalgivesusabasictutorialontheuseofthewordreflexive:Reflexive describes “an action that is directed back upon itself”. For thepurposesofSystemsTheoryreflexivityisdefinedastheapplicationofaprocessto itself, e.g. “thinking of thinking”, “communicating about communication”,“teachinghowtoteach”etc.Inthecontextoflawreflexivitycouldbe“makinglaws on law-making”, “adjudicating on adjudication”, or “regulating self-regulation”.Itisobvious,thatthefocusofReflexiveLawinthiscontextisratheronproceduralthanonsubstantivelaw.151

Systems Theory, a foundational concept of Technocracy, is based on self-regulatingsystemsthatdependonfeedbackforself-regulation,suchassystemsfound inweather, ecosystems, lifeprocesses,etc.As it applies to law, the lawitselfisdesignedtobeself-correctingasitgoesalong,usingfeedbackfromtheobjectbeingregulated.TheJournalthengoesontoexplain:Anothermeaningofreflexiveis“marked

byorcapableof reflection”, referring toreflexion in itsphilosophicalmeaningof“introspectivecontemplationorconsiderationofsomesubjectmatter”.Hereone can find the normative implications ofReflexiveLaw as being connectedwithaconceptofrationality.However,rationalityisnotunderstoodasaqualityof norms, but in accordance with Discourse Theory rather as communicativerationality. In a nutshell, decision-making in a reflexive legal system shall bemarked by thorough deliberation or reasoning as well as by reflection on thespecificfunctionandlimitsoflawinmodernsociety.152

Discourse Theory is a postmodern tenet that consensus is achieved bydiscourseamongthevariousactorsinvolvedinaparticularissue.Suchdiscoursecanincludeanyformofcommunicationplusanyamountofoutsideinformationthatbearsonthesubject.Thus,papers,studies,relatedscience,expertwitnesses,etc.,canbebroughttoadiscoursetoinfluencethediscussionandtheresultingconsensusoroutcomes.

Lastly,theJournaladds,“athirdmeaningofreflexiveis‘arelationthatexistsbetweenanentityanditself’,i.e.aconceptofself-reference.Thisleadsustothevery basic concept of Autopoiesis.” Autopoiesis originally referred to thebiologicalworldwhereacell,forinstance,iscapableofreproducingitself.ThetermwaslaterappliedtosociologyandthentolawbyTeubner.Fromapoliticaland legal point of view, it refers to the gradual rise of order out of chaos.153AnotherEuropean legal scholar expands the topic:Autopoietic law radicalizesthefunctionalist’sinstrumentalizationoflawasameansofsocialengineeringbyleaving the driver’s seat empty. Rejecting the idea that law, from any single“outside”point,coulddeterminetheoutcomeofsocialconflicts,autopoieticlawstresses the way in which law is a mere, yet highly particular, form ofcommunication.154

Thisisaverydifficulttopictounderstand.Essentially,ReflexiveLawassumesthat social norms (determined by discourse) are chaotic when compared tosubstantive or formal law. By applying System Theory, these norms arediscoveredandthencodifiedwithrulesthatareformulatedtoreinforcethemona larger scale.As rulesaredevelopedandadded toother rules,whatappearedchaotic is now supposed tohaveorder andharmony.However, the thoughtoforderfromchaosisnobetterthanDarwin’sunproventheorythatspeciesevolvefrom less complex tomore complex. The legalworld today experiencesmorechaosthaneverbefore.TheproblemwithReflexiveLaw is that it cannotoperate inavacuum,as is

suggested, but is at all times subject to those who control it. It is ripe formanipulation. Reflexive Law practitioners can thus direct the discourse, theoutcome, and the rule-making, in avery real sense like theoldWestvigilanteconceptofthelocalself-appointedsheriffbeing“judge,juryandexecutioner”.ReflexiveLawisoftenassociatedwiththeLatinterm,lexmercatoria,meaning

“merchant law”. Historically, merchant law was used by merchants (mostlyshipping)duringthemedievalperiodtosettledisputes,andcourtroomsweresetup along trade routes tohear cases.Merchantsmade their own laws and rulesaccording to trade customs and best practices, both of which were constantlychanging according to themood of the trade industry. That Reflexive Law ispointed directly at economic issues is seen in statements like,Recent researchowesmuch to Teubner’s concept of reflexive law, a self-governing system orform of regulated self-regulation. From this standpoint, lex mercatoria is aparadigmof thenewglobal law.Itconsists lessofdetailedrules thanofbroadprinciples, such as good faith. Its boundaries are markets, professional

communities or social networks, not territories. Instead of being relativelyautonomousfrompoliticalinstitutions,itdependsheavilyonothersocialfieldsbeingespeciallysubject toeconomicpressures. It isnotunifiedbutdecenteredand non-hierarchical. Stimulated by globalisation, it constantly breaks thehierarchicalframeofthenationalconstitutionwithinwhichprivaterule-makingtakesplace, resulting inanewheterarchical frame,acharacteristicof thisnewglobalnon-statelaw.155

Thelastsentenceinparticularishighlycharged:ReflexiveLawbreaksdownprivate rule-makingbyanationalconstitutionandduly-elected representatives,replacingitinsteadwitha“newglobalnon-statelaw”.Furthermore, lex mercatoria specifically applies to environmental law. The

economicsystemofTechnocracyisworkingitselfoutthroughwhattheUnitedNations has termed the “Green Economy”. It is based on SustainableDevelopment and Agenda 21 policies. Thus, it would be no surprise thatReflexive Law is playing the role of enforcer on a global scale. Oneenvironmentallawjournalstates,Ratherthantryingtoregulateasocialproblemasawhole,reflexivelawaimstoenlistothersocialinstitutionstotreattheissue.Reflexive legal strategies look to influence the processes of intermediaryinstitutions,suchasgovernmentagenciesandcompanies,ratherthantoregulatesocialbehaviordirectly.Reflexive law attempts to provide solutions to the gridlock of modem law.Reflexivesolutionsoffloadsomeof theweightofsocialregulation fromthelegal system to other social actors. This is accomplished byproceduralization. Rather than detailed pronouncements of acceptablebehavior, the law adopts procedures for regulated entities to follow. Theprocedures are adopted with a design in mind to encourage thinking andbehaviorintherightdirection.156

Anotherenvironmentallawjournalismoredirect:Atthesametime,sustainabledevelopment’sbroadsweepstrainsourintellectualgraspofitsmeaningandoutrunsthecapacityofourcurrentlegalandpoliticalsystemstochannelsociety’sactivitiestowarditsachievement…thereisnodoubtthatsustainabledevelopmentneedsnewparadigmstotransformitfromvisionaryrhetorictoaviablepoliticalgoal.157[Emphasisadded]Apparently, Sustainable Development was merely visionary rhetoric until

ReflexiveLawwasapplied.HereweseeReflexiveLawbeingusedasadirectmeans to achieve a political goal, namely, the implementation of SustainableDevelopment. Did citizens of the world vote on the merits of imposing

Sustainable Development? Hardly. As noted earlier, Sustainable Developmentwas conceived by the Brundtland Commission led by Trilateral CommissionmemberGroBrundtland.DidthecitizensoftheworldvoteonpoliciescreatedbytheUnitedNations’Agenda21?No.Theywereconceivedbythesameglobalelitewhohadaverynarrowandpre-conceivedpoliticalagendathatwouldnotbedeterredbypublicopinionordissent.The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established by Congress

under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). At that time,Reflexive Lawwas not yet a gleam in Technocracy’s eye. TheAct“requiresfederal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision makingprocesses by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actionsandreasonablealternativestothoseactions.”158

MostAmericanssimplyshaketheirheadsatthecrazyrulingsandregulationsthatareproducedbytheEPAonacontinualbasis.Theyseenorhymeorreasonto it, but if they were to read Technocracy Rising, they would understandperfectly.By2002,theEPAwasinfullstride.Thesameenvironmentaljournalfromabovemakesitperfectlyclear:Inpubliclaw,therequirementthatfederalagenciesprepareanenvironmentalimpactstatementonproposedactionsunderthe National Environmental Policy Act (hereinafter NEPA) has been clearlydefinedbytheSupremeCourtasastrictlyproceduralrequirement.ThismakesNEPAquintessentiallyreflexive;theagencyisrequiredtostudyandthinkaboutenvironmentaleffects,butoncethestatementhasbeenprepared,theagencyisfree to choose a decision that is more environmentally harmful than otheroptions.159[Emphasisadded]Indeed,theEPAis“quintessentiallyreflexive”.Onceithasmadeupitsmind

onanissue,itcandowhateveritpleasestobringitabout-again,judge,juryandexecutionerallinonepackage.Ifit isnotalreadyevident,ReflexiveLawisalwaysseeninconjunctionwith

social control, that is, how one thinks and behaves. It seeks a recursive andreiterativepathtokeeppushingataproblemuntilthereisuniformcompliance.Perhapstheonlywaytoexplainthisisthroughtwoconcreteexamples.In2003,StanfordUniversityreleasedabooktitledGreeningNAFTA(NAFTA

stands for the North American Free Trade Agreement). A friend hadrecommendedittomebecauseitcontaineddetailsaboutasupplementaltreatytoNAFTAcalled theNorthAmericanAgreementonEnvironmentalCooperation(NAAEC).TheNAAECinturnhadcreatedtheNorthAmericanCommissionforEnvironmental Cooperation, or CEC. As it turns out, the CECwas “the first

international organization created to address the environmental aspects ofeconomicintegration.”160

As I reviewed the book, my eyes fell on a chapter title toward the back,CoordinatingLandandWaterUseintheSanPedroRiverBasin.TheSanPedroRiverisinsouthernArizona,anditjustsohappenedthatIhadownedaranchonthatsameriverwhenI firstgotoutofcollege in1968,andsoIknewthearealike thebackofmyhand.My interestwas immediatelyaroused.According tothebook,theSanPedroRiverBasinwasthefirstinstanceofCECinvolvementin theU.S.because itwasasmallandrelativelyunimportantareaandbecausethe headwaters of the San PedroRiver originated inMexico just south of theU.S.border.GreeningNAFTAexplains,UnderArticles13and14[ofNAAEC],theSecretariatcanacceptandreviewcitizensubmissionsallegingthatoneofthethreecountriesisnotenforcingitsexistingenvironmentallaws.161

InthecaseoftheSanPedroRiverBasinsubmission(i.e.,complaint)itcamenot from a citizen, but from the radical environmental group based out ofTucson,theSouthwestCenterforBiologicalDiversity(SCBD).TheSCBDwasallworkedupthatenvironmentaldamagewasbeingperpetratedalongtheriverbythelandowners,farmersandrancherswholivedthere.Theyhadnoconcreteproofthattheirallegationsweresubstantiveorevenaccurateatall.Itwassimplyanaprioriaccusationontheirpart,butthemerechargewasenoughtosetoffachainofeventsthatchangedtheSanPedroRiverBasinforever.Hereiswherethe plot thickens. The authors explain: Article 13 can be characterized as anexampleofpostmodern,“soft”or“reflexive”internationallawbecauseitseekstoinfluencepublicandprivatebehaviorwithoutthethreatoftheenforcementoftraditional,sanction-based“hard”law.162

GreeningNAFTAnowexplainsexactlywhatReflexiveLawentails:Reflexivelawtriestoalignsystematicallylegalruleswithnormsthattherelevantactorswillinternalize.Itbuildsontherealizationthatthereasonswhypeopleactuallyobeylawultimatelylieoutsideformaladjudicationandthepowerofthestatetoenforcerules.163Again, Reflexive Law starts out with desired outcomes created by the

unelected and unaccountable actors for which there are no specific laws. Ofcourse,theycouldhaveappealedtoCongresstocreatelegislation,aswouldberequired by the Constitution, but Congress would never go along with thisscheme. At the end of the reflexive process, described below, the actualoutcomes depended on how well the stakeholders “internalized” what wasproposed. Inotherwords, therewasnoactual legalprocessat all,but rather a

jawboningprocessthatconnedtheactorsintocompliance.“Information disclosure” was shown to be a principal policy instrument of

Reflexive Law. That is, the analysis produced along the lines of DiscourseTheorywaspresentedwithits“recommendedoutcomes”.Publicmeetingswerethenheld tobuildconsensusbetween individualcitizensandother“actors”. InthecaseoftheSanPedroRiverBasinstudy,theCECenlistedtheUniversityofArizona’s Udall Center to hold these public meetings. After all was said anddone, therewaszeroconsensusamongactualcitizensof thearea.As thebooksimply notes, “Public comment was emotionally divided on the reduction ofirrigated agriculture.”164Really? In fact, the farmers and ranchers in the areawerebeyondlivid,buttherealpurposeofthepublicmeetingshadnothingtodowith getting their voluntary consensus. Rather, themeetingswere designed topubliclyabusethemuntiltheysubmitted.The Greening NAFTA authors are very blunt about this: This experience

reveals two powerful incentives at work: shame and the desire to be virtuouswhile saving money or increasing profit margins. In a post-Holocaust world,human rights NGOs have effectively used shame to induce compliance withuniversal human rights norms. Also, voluntary pollution reduction has beenachievedwhenitisinternallyprofitableforanindustrytoreduceitsdischargesoranindustryanticipatesincreasedregulatoryorpublicpressuretoreducethemfromthedisclosure,suchasthroughpublicshaming.Shamingworkswellwithpollution,especiallytoxicpollution,becauseitdrawsondeep,perhapsirrational,fearsofexposuretotheriskofseriousillnessandaninnateabhorrenceofbodilyinjury.165

Since when is public shame an instrument of legal disputes? What of thefarmers and ranchers in theSanPedroRiverBasinwho refused tobe shamedintoconsensusduringtheUdallCenterpublichearings?Afterall,theyhadzeroinput into theCEC’s studyand subsequent “recommendations”, norwere theyconsulted prior to the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity’s originalcomplaint.Inactuality,theyweresimplyofferedotherincentivesthattheywerehelpless to refuse or refute: Two concrete incentives that have successfullyinducedlandownercooperationundertheU.S.EndangeredSpeciesActarefearof a worse regulatory outcome and immunity from liability for changedconditions.166

Intheend,thefarmersandrancherssuccumbedtotheReflexiveLawprocesswhen the regulatory bullies showed upwith threats of what would happen tothem if they did not buckle under to the CEC’s demands. These “actors”

included theBureauofLandManagement,managerof theSanPedroRiparianNationalConservationArea(SPRNCA)andtheU.S.Departmentof theArmy.AccompanyingthemwereseveralNGOs,includingtheNatureConservancyandtheSouthwestCenterforBiologicalDiversity.Thefederalthreatwas“Wewillbankrupt you with regulations.” The NGO threat was “Wewill bankrupt youwithlawsuits.”This is “Reflexive Law”, and it is 100 percent antithetical to the American

Republic, the Rule of Law, theU.S. Constitution and the entirety ofWesterncivilization.Becausecompliancehasalwaysbeenpositedasvoluntary,nobodyhasbeenalarmedenoughtolookanyfurtheratit.However,Iwillpointoutthatalmost every global imposition has been based on the voluntary aspect ofReflexive Law. For instance,Agenda 21 depends upon voluntary compliance,whichisoftenreferredtoas“softlaw”amongitscriticswhohavenotperceivedthedeepermeaningofReflexiveLaw.CommonCoreeducationstandardswereintroduced as a voluntary program. Sustainable Development in general isalwaysproposedasavoluntaryprogram.AllofthesearebasedonthetheoryofReflexive Law.But, once it gets its tentacles into your personal property andlocal community, you will be involuntarily squeezed until you “voluntarily”comply.Thereisnolegalprocessavailabletodefendyourself,yourproperty,oryourrights.Thereisnoappealfromthedamagedonetoyourrightsorproperty.AnotherexampleofReflexiveLawrevealingitselfisseeninanarticleinthe

New York Times, “Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty”. Thearticle states that “the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from othercountries tobrokeradeal tocommitsomeof theworld’s largesteconomies toenact laws toreduce theircarbonpollution.”167Theself-decidedsocialnormisthatcarbonpollutionisbadandthatsocietymustcutbackorriskrunningoutofresources altogether.Theproblem is theConstitutionwhichbars thePresidentfrom signing any legally binding treaty without a two-thirds vote from theSenate. The article then offers the Reflexive Law solution: To sidestep thatrequirement [two-third vote of the Senate], President Obama’s climatenegotiators are devisingwhat they call a “politically binding” deal thatwould“nameand shame” countries into cutting their emissions.Thedeal is likely tofacestrongobjectionsfromRepublicansonCapitolHillandfrompoorcountriesaroundtheworld,butnegotiatorssayitmaybetheonlyrealisticpath.168

Name and shame?Politically binding but not legally binding?Knowing thattheSenatewouldnevervoteonsuchshenanigans,thenegotiatorsconcludethat“itmaybetheonlyrealisticpath.”Thus,PresidentObamaisdeliveringusinto

aninternationalReflexiveLawtreatythathasnoactual legalbasis infact,andthat is why they think they are justified in ignoring the Senate. After all, theSenate deals with “hard law” while the White House deals with “ReflexiveLaw”.Furthermore,theywillusetheprincipal“nameandshame”policytoolofReflexive Law to smoke out the resistance for public shaming. Subsequently,fromwhatisnowknownabouthowReflexiveLawisenforcedintheend,thoseholdoutswillbeoffereda“deal that theycannot refuse”,namely,muchworseregulatory outcomes, international lawsuits and entanglement, trade sanctions,etc.TheNYTelaboratesfurther:Americannegotiatorsareinsteadhominginona

hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from anexisting1992 treatywithnewvoluntarypledges.Themixwouldcreateadealthatwouldupdatethetreaty,andthus,negotiatorssay,notrequireanewvoteofratification.Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate changepolicies—butwouldvoluntarilypledge to specific levelsofemissionscutsand to channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climatechange.Countriesmight then be legally obligated to report their progresstowardmeetingthosepledgesatmeetingsheldtoidentifythosenationsthatdidnotmeettheircuts.169

ThereisnotasingleshredofdoubtthatanythingotherthanReflexiveLawispicturedhere.ItspitsinthefaceoftraditionalRuleofLawthatourcountrywasfoundeduponandoperatedunderuntil1983whenthistreasonouslegalsystemwasconceived -byaGerman,no less.Forall intentsandpurposes,ReflexiveLawiscausingtheuttercollapseoftheRuleofLawasweknowit.Don’t even begin to think this is anything less than blatant, for the article

concludeswiththefrankbraggadocio:“There’ssomelegalandpoliticalmagicto this,” said Jake Schmidt, an expert in global climate negotiations with theNatural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. “They’re trying tomovethisasfaraspossiblewithouthavingtoreachthe67-votethreshold”intheSenate.170

Magic, indeed. Merriam-Webster defines magic as “the art of producingillusions by sleight of hand.” From a layman’s point of view, that perfectlydescribestheheartandintentofReflexiveLaw.Onecriticallegalscholarsumsitupthisway:Lookingatmanyoftherecentinnovationsinreflexiveregulationsuggests that the effects of “reflective” approachmight lie in stimulating newwaysofavoidinglawsratherthaninenhancingcompliancewiththem.171

151Gralf-PeterCalliess,“LexMercatoria:AReflexiveLawGuideToAnAutonomousLegalSystem”,GermanLawJournal,2001).152Ibid.153SlavojZizek,“LessThanNothing”,(Verso,2012),p.467.154Zumbansen,“Lawafterthewelfarestate:formalism,functionalismandtheironicturnofreflexivelaw”,TranStateWorkingPapers,UniversityofBremen,2009.155FrancisSnyder,“EconomicGlobalisationandtheLawinthe21stCentury”,BlackwellPublishers,(2004).156Orts,“ReflexiveEnvironmentalLaw”,NorthwesternLawReview,(1995),p.1264.157Gaines,“ReflexiveLawasaLegalParadigmForSustainableDevelopment”,BuffaloEnvironmentalLawJournal,(2002).158EPAWebSite(www.epa.gov).159Orts.160MarkellandKnox,GreeningNAFTA,(StanfordUniversityPress,2003),p.2.161Ibid.p.217.162Ibid.p.218.163Ibid.p.231.164Ibid.p.228.165Ibid.p.231.166Ibid.p.232.167“ObamaPursuingClimateAccordinLieuofTreaty”,NewYorkTimes,August26,2014.168Ibid.169Ibid.170Ibid.171Blankenburg,“ThePovertyofEvolutionism:ACritiqueofTeubner’sCaseFor‘ReflexiveLaw’”,Law&SocietyReview,p.288,1984.

A

CHAPTER8

TRANSFORMINGENERGY:GLOBALSMARTGRID

key requirement in the implementationofTechnocracy is control overenergy,bothdistributionandconsumption.However,youcannot control

whatyoucannotmonitorandmeasure,andthisiswhereSmartGridweighsin.Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert clearly delineated this in the first tworequirementslistedinTechnocracyStudyCourse:

Register on a continuous 24 hour-per-day basis the total netconversionofenergyBymeansoftheregistrationofenergyconvertedandconsumed,makepossibleabalancedload172

Thetechnologyrequiredtoachievethesegoalsdidnotexistinthe1930s,butitdoesexisttoday.It’scalledSmartGrid.WhatisSmartGrid?Smart Grid is a broad technical term that encompasses the generation,

distributionandconsumptionofelectricalpower,withaninclusionforgasandwateraswell.SmartGrid isan initiative that seeks tocompletely redesign thepowergridusingadvanceddigitaltechnology,includingtheinstallationofnew,digitalmetersoneveryhomeandbusiness.Using wireless communication technology, these digital meters provide

around-the-clock monitoring of a consumer’s energy consumption usingcontinuous two-way communication between the utility and the consumer’sproperty. Furthermore,meters are able to communicatewith electrical deviceswithin theresidence inorder togatherconsumptiondataand tocontrolcertaindevicesdirectlywithoutconsumerintervention.AccordingtoaU.S.DepartmentofEnergypublication,The Department of Energy has been charged with orchestrating thewholesalemodernizationofournation’selectricalgrid....HeadingthiseffortistheOfficeofElectricityDeliveryandEnergyReliability.Inconcertwithitscuttingedgeresearchandenergypolicyprograms,theoffice’snewlyformed,

multi-agency Smart Grid Task Force is responsible for coordinatingstandards development, guiding research and development projects, andreconcilingtheagendasofawiderangeofstakeholders.173

TheOfficeofElectricityDeliveryandEnergyReliabilitywascreatedin2003underPresidentGeorgeW.Bushandwaselevatedinstaturein2007bycreatingthepositionofAssistantSecretaryofElectricityDeliveryandEnergyReliabilitytoheadit.Itisnotstatedwho“charged”theDepartmentofEnergytothistask,butsince

theSecretaryofEnergyanswersdirectlytothePresidentasacabinetposition,itis self-evident that the directive came from the President, whether Bush orObama.Inanycase,therewasnoCongressionallegislationthatrequiredit,norhastherebeenanyCongressionaloversightcontrollingit.

ImplementationOnOctober27,2009,theObamaadministrationunveileditsSmartGridplan

by awarding $3.4 billion to 100 Smart Grid projects.174 According to theDepartment of Energy’s first press release, these awardswere to result in theinstallationof

morethan850sensorscalled“PhasorMeasurementUnits”tomonitortheoverallpowergridnationwide200,000smarttransformers700automatedsubstations(about5percentofthenation’stotal)1,000,000in-homedisplays345,000loadcontroldevicesinhomes

This was the “kick-start” of Smart Grid in the U.S. On January 8, 2010,President Obama unveiled an additional $2.3 billion Federal funding programfor the “energy manufacturing sector” as part of the $787 billion AmericanReinvestmentandRecoveryAct.Fundinghadalreadybeenawardedinadvancetoprojectsin43states,pendingObama’sannouncement.OnesuchprojectinthenorthwestwasheadedbyBattelleMemorialInstitute,

covering five states and targeting 60,000 customers. The project was actuallydeveloped by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), a federal agencyundertheDepartmentofEnergy.Sinceitispointedlyillegalforafederalagencytoapply for federal funds,BPApassed theprojectoff toBattelle, anon-profitandnon-governmentalorganization(NGO),whichwaspromptlyawarded$178million.It is important to note that BPA takes credit for originating the Smart Grid

concept in the early 1990s which it termed “Energy Web”. This alone isevidence that thewheelsofTechnocracywere turningyearsbefore the turnofthecentury.It isalsointerestingtonotethatWashingtonstatewasahotbedofTechnocracymembershipandsupportersinthe1930sandiscurrentlyhometotheheadquartersofTechnocracy,Inc.AccordingtoBattelle’sAugust27,2009pressrelease,The project will involve more than 60,000 metered customers in Idaho,Montana, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming. Using smart gridtechnologies,theprojectwillengagesystemassetsexceeding112megawatts,theequivalentofpowertoserve86,000households.

“The proposed demonstration will study smart grid benefits atunprecedentedgeographicbreadthacrossfivestates,spanningtheelectricalsystemfromgenerationtoend-use,andcontainingmanykeyfunctionsofthefuturesmartgrid,”saidMikeDavis,aBattellevicepresident,“Theintendedimpact of this project will span well beyond traditional utility serviceterritory boundaries, helping to enable a future grid that meets pressinglocal,regionalandnationalneeds.”175

BattelleandBPAworkedcloselytogether,andtherewasanobviousblurringas to who was really in control of the project’s management during the testperiod. In a “For Internal UseOnly” documentwritten inAugust 2009, BPAoffered talking points to its partners: “Smart Grid technology includeseverything from interactive appliances in homes to smart meters, substationautomationandsensorsontransmissionlines.”Venture capitalistswho saw the coming feeding frenzy invested close to $2

billion in 2010-2012, and the largest providers invested billions more inincreasedcapacity.TheseincludedglobalplayerslikeIBM,Siemens,GE,Cisco,Panasonic,Kyocera,Toshiba,Mitsubishiandothers.TheresultingbonanzaofinvestmenthaspushedSmartGridpastthetrialstage

and well into the rollout phase. Between 2012 and 2020, total aggregatespendingonSmartGridwilllikelyexceed$500billion.The data-tracking element of Smart Grid is a second element of concern.

Annualspendingonsoftwaresystemsanddatatrackingwereestimatedtoreach$1.1 billion in 2013 and as much as $3.8 billion by 2020. According to oneanalyst, “With the influx of big data, the potential of smart grid has shifteddramaticallyfromtheoriginalaimofaddingamyriadofnewdevicestowardacompletere-inventionofthewayutilitiesdobusiness.”176

The dynamics of hardware/software interaction dramatically reinforces andaccelerates the development cycle; the hardware (digital smart meters)representing the data collection system has hotly stimulated softwaredevelopment.Inturn, theadvancedsoftwareusedtoaggregateandanalyzethedataputsevenmoreurgencyintocompletingthephysicalinfrastructure.This acceleration dynamic between hardware and software is well known

withintheworldofengineeringandcomputerscience.Engineerswillpushtheenvelope at every opportunity to improve both hardware and software asadditionalfunctionalityisseenasbeneficial.Thus,whatObamastartedasaseedproject in 2009 has now become a self-nourished behemoth with a life of itsown.

Beforewe examine how the global SmartGrid is being built out, itwill behelpfultounderstandanewtechnologycalled“InternetofThings”(IoT).ANetworkofThingsNetworks of various kinds are foundational to Technocracy, and this is

especiallytrueoftheInternetofThings.AstheWorldWideWebistopeople,the IoT is to appliances. This brand new technology creates a wireless (or insome cases,wired) network between a broad range of inanimate objects fromshoes to refrigerators. This concept is “shovel ready” for Smart Gridimplementation because appliances, meters and substations are all inanimateitems that technocrats would have communicating with each other inautonomousfashion.IoTisnotonlyrevolutionaryinconceptbutalsoisexplodingineverydirection

insociety.ItismadepossiblebyanupgradedInternetaddressingsystemcalledIPv6 which was initially formalized in 1998. Admittedly, it gets a littlecomplicatedtoexplain.AllInternettrafficisroutedfrompointtopointbasedona unique address assigned to each point. The original Internet communicationwasbasedonanolderstandardcalledIPv4,thecapacityofwhichwaslimitedtoonly 4.3 billion devices, e.g., computers, servers, routers and so forth. IPv4 isstill used worldwide, but you can imagine the address availability crisisconsideringthemanybillionsofcomputers, tabletsandsmartphonesallvyingfor theirownunique identity.TheIPv6standardexpands theavailableaddresspoolto340trilliontrilliontrillion,ormorethanwecouldeverconceivablyuse;orcouldwe?IPv6islargeenoughtoassignauniqueaddresstoeveryperson,computer,and

digitaldeviceknowntoexist,andbarelybreakasweat.Givingauniqueaddresstoyourdigitalsmartmeter,pluseverydigitaldeviceinyourhomeisminiscule.Everycreditcard,driver’slicense,RFID(Radio-FrequencyIDentification)chipin the world could have its own address.WhenWal-Mart sells tennis shoes,everypair couldbe “chipped” anduniquely addressed, and soon for all retailmerchandise. Think about industrial machines and processes: factories,machines, software programs, algorithms, employees, ad infinitum, can beaddressed.Furthermore,everydeviceintheworldthatcanreceiveauniqueaddressunder

IPv6canbecatalogedanddescribed.Youwillwonderwhythismatters,but itdoes, and here’s why.With IPv4 and Smart Grid, the appliances within yourhomeorbusinesscanonlybecontrolledbyfirstaccessingyourexternalSmart

Meter.Yourinternalappliancescanthenbereachedbytheirassigned“pseudo-addresses”thatareknownonlywithinyourhome.Thisisasemi-manualprocessandtotallyblocksthetechnocratdreamofcontrollingeverythingautomaticallyviaremotesoftware.However,ifallofyourapplianceshaveuniqueandcatalogedIPv6addresses,

thenallwashingmachines,forinstance,couldbeaccessedasaclassofdeviceswithauniversalcommandtoturnthemonoroff…orlimittheirusagetocertaintimes of the day.With IoT, accessing remote resources via class, type, group,etc.,isatechnocrat’snirvana.Usageandconsumptionpoliciescanthenbesetatthetoplevelandexecutedautomaticallyacrosstheentirepopulationofaregion,countryoreventheentireworld!Hereisahypotheticalexample.TheDepartmentofEnergy(DOE)istryingto

balance the loadbetween supply anddemandduring the hotmonthof July. Italsoknowsthatairconditionersaretheprimaryconsumersofelectricityduringthisperiod.Forthelast5years,theDOEhasbeenpushingenergyefficientairconditioners that use 10 percent less energy than other classes of units, and itpromised to “reward” purchasers of these newunits.DOE further knowswhohasall theother“dirty,powerhog”unitsand inparticulara fewbrands that itreallydislikes.Asummertimepolicydecisionisthenmadetogiveeveryonethesame allocation of energy regardless of unit owned to keep the baselinethermostatreadingat75degrees.Themostefficientunitsundershootthatmarkandcanset their thermostats to70degreeswhilemeeting theirallocation.Theleastefficientunitscanonlyrunat80degreesgiventhesameamountofenergy.Asthecommandisissuedto“makeitso”,theDOE’ssupercomputerinstantlyidentifies every air conditioner in the country by its IPv6 address, owner,manufacturer,modeland installdate,andsimultaneously issuesacommand to“speak” to each IPv6-addressed thermostat and adjust it accordingly. Tensecondslater,everythermostatinthenationhasbeen“balanced”.Well,hereishowitisintendedtoworkintherealworld.In2008thePacific

NorthwestNationalLaboratory(PNNL)developedasmallcircuitboardcalleda“Grid Friendly Appliance Controller”. According to a Department of Energybrochure,TheGFAControllerdevelopedbyPacificNorthwestNationalLaboratoryisasmallcircuitboardbuilt intohouseholdappliancesthatreducesstressonthe power grid by continually monitoring fluctuations in available power.During times of high demand, appliances equipped with the controllerautomaticallyshutdownforashortperiodoftime,resultinginacumulative

reductionthatcanmaintainstabilityonthegrid.177

Furthermore,accordingtoPNNL’swebsite,Thecontrollerisessentiallyasimplecomputerchipthatcanbeinstalledinregular household appliances like dishwashers, clothes washers, dryers,refrigerators, air conditioners, and water heaters. The chip senses whenthere is a disruption in the grid and turns the appliances off for a fewsecondsorminutestoallowthegridtostabilize.Thecontrollersalsocanbeprogrammed to delay the restart of the appliances. The delay allows theappliances to be turned on one at a time rather than all at once to easepowerrestorationfollowinganoutage.178

You can see how automatic actions are intended to be triggered by directinteraction between objects, without human intervention. The rules will bewritten by programmers under the direction of technocrats who create thepolicies which are then downloaded to the controllers as necessary. Thus,changes to the rules can be made on the fly, at any time, and without thehomeowner’sknowledgeorpermission.PNNL is not a private enterprise, however. It is “owned” by the U.S.

DepartmentofEnergyandoperatedbyBattelleMemorialInstitute!AllofthistechnologywillbeenabledwithWi-Ficircuitrythatisidenticalto

theWi-Fi-enablednetworkmodemsand routerscommonlyused inhomesandbusinessesthroughouttheworld.Wi-FiisatrademarkoftheWi-FiAlliancethatrefers towirelessnetworksystemsused indevices frompersonalcomputers tomobilephones,connectingthemtogetherand/ortotheInternet.Accordingto theWi-FiAlliance,“theneedforSmartGridsolutions isbeing

driven by the emergence of distributed power generation andmanagement/monitoring of consumption.” In their white paper,Wi-Fi for theSmartGrid,theylistthespecificrequirementsforinteroperabilitypostedbytheDepartmentofEnergy:

Provide two-way communication among grid users, e.g. regionalmarketoperators,utilities,serviceprovidersandconsumersAllowpowersystemoperatorstomonitortheirownsystemsaswellasneighboringsystemsthataffectthemsoastofacilitatemorereliableenergydistributionanddeliveryCoordinate the integration into the power system of emergingtechnologies such as renewable resources, demand responseresources, electricity storage facilities and electric transportation

systemsEnsurethecybersecurityofthegrid.179

Thus,thebi-directionalandrealtimeSmartGridcommunicationsnetworkwilldepend on Wi-Fi from end to end. While the consumer is pacified with thepromise of lower utility costs, it is the utility company who will enforce thepolicies set by the regional, national and global regulators. Thus, if aneighboring system has a shortage of electricity, your thermostat mightautomatically be turned down to compensate; if you have exceeded yourmonthlydaytimequotaofelectricity,energy-consumingtaskslikewashinganddryingclothescouldbelimitedtoovernighthours.Here is another hypothetical example of how the IoTmightwork.Let’s say

that all IoT devices in your utility area are happily communicatingwith eachotherandthelocalcontrollingdevice.Asophisticatedprogrampolicyisineffectto limitaggregateconsumption ineachhomeaccording to typesofappliances,insulationefficiencyandsquarefootageofthehome.Accordingly,thecontrollerdevicecontainsabaselineconsumptionvalueforeachhomeintheutilityarea.Whenaneighborhoodhomeexceedsitsbaselineconsumption, internaldevicesare“takenover”toreduceyourload;thismightmeanchangingthethermostat,limitingwashersanddryerstooff-peakhours,etc.When Smart Grid promises of lower utility costs are examined in the real

world, we find a completely different story, namely, record high electricityprices:For the first time ever, the average price for a kilowatthour (KWH) ofelectricity in the United States has broken through the 14-cent mark,climbingtoarecord14.3centsinJune.180

Toaddinsulttoinjury,theInternationalMonetaryFund(IMF)simultaneouslycalledforhigherenergypricesinordertofightclimatechange.181Theconsumeris obviously not in view here; talk of lower utility costs refers to the utilitycompanies.

SmartGridGoesGlobalAprominentbusinessjournalstatedonNovember16,2009that“Afterseveral

false starts, 2010 finally could be the year when smart meters go global.”182Indeed,itwas:

ItalyhadalreadyimplementedSmartGridtechnologyin85percentofitshomesnationwide.Earth2Tech reported that Smart Grid will generate $200 billion ofglobalinvestmentinthenextfewyears.The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) has laid out aglobal roadmap to insure interoperability of Smart Grid systemsamongnations.Chinaisspending$7.32billiontobuildoutSmartGridinAsia.

Other countries with Smart Grid pilot projects that were already launchedincluded Germany, France, England, Russia, Japan, India, Australia, SouthAfrica and a host of others. Regional organizations such as SMARTGRIDSAfricaweresetuptopromoteSmartGridinsmallercountries.Theglobalrushwas truly underway. In every case, Smart Grid was being accelerated bygovernment stimulus spending, and the global vendors weremerely lining uptheirmoneybucketstobefilledupwithtaxpayerfunds.AsisthecaseintheU.S.,therewaslittle,ifany,preexistingorlatentdemand

for Smart Grid technology. Demand had been artificially created by therespectivegovernmentsofeachcountry.Couldithavebeenrandomchancethatsomanynationschosetokick-startSmartGridatthesametimewiththesamekindoffunding,thatis,taxpayerfundedstimulusmoney?One organization dedicated to the creation of a global Smart Grid stated,

“Thereisanewworldwidewebemergingrightbeforeoureyes.It isaglobalenergynetworkand,liketheinternet,itwillchangeourculture,societyandhowwe do business. More importantly, it will alter how we use, transform andexchange energy.”183 Statements like this allude to the grandiose nature of aglobalSmartGrid:AsbigastheInternetandabletotranscendborders,culturesandentiresocieties.Withthestakesthishigh,thetechnocraticglobalelitewentall intobuildaglobal infrastructureandcreatestandardstocontrol theenergydistributionandconsumptionacrosstheentireplanet.ProponentsofSmartGridhaveclaimedthatitwillempowertheconsumerto

better manage his or her power consumption and hence, costs. The utilitycompanies will therefore be more efficient in balancing power loads andrequirements across diverse markets. However, like carnival barkers, theseSmartGridhuckstersneverrevealedwhereorhowSmartGridcameintobeing,norwhattheultimateendgamemightbe.The reader should again note that the reasons for the existence of the

Technocracymovement in the1930sare thesamereasonsgiventoday:energyefficiency, load balancing, fairness, alleviating poverty and hunger, etc. Thefeignedconcernforthoseinpovertyandhungerintheunderdevelopednationsishollow. Technocracy is pointedly amoral in its practice: the means (theirScientificMethod/process)justifiestheend,whatevertheendmightturnouttobe.InadditiontoEuropeanandAsiancountriesandtheUnitedStates,SmartGrid

isalsobeingimplementedinbothCanadaandMexico,andplannershavebeenworking on standards that will integrate all of North America into a single,unifiedSmartGridsystem.This“continental”gridisdesignedtointegratewithothercontinentalsystemstocreateaunifiedglobalSmartGrid.OneleaderinthisplanetarySmartGridistheGlobalEnergyNetworkInstitute

(GENI).IthascreatedaDymaxion(tm)MapoftheworldfromtheperspectiveoftheNorthPolethatrevealstheglobalgridcurrentlyunderconstruction.Theonly part of planet earth left untouched is Antarctica. High-voltage electricaltransmissionlinksaredisplayedthatarecapableoftransferringlargeamountsofenergyfromcontinenttocontinenttobalanceglobalsupplyanddemand.TheGENIprojecthasgatheredmomentumandisendorsedbygloballeaders

suchastheDalaiLama,ArchbishopDesmondTutu,Sen.JamesJeffords(I-VT)and Noel Brown (North American Director, United Nations EnvironmentalProgram),theUnitedNationsandbythegovernmentsofCanada,NewZealand,Switzerland,andChina,amongothers.AccordingtoGENI,theconceptualdesignfortheglobalSmartGridiscredited

to a brilliant architect, system theorist, designer and futurist, R. BuckminsterFuller(1895-1983).AlthoughFullerwasnotajoiner,hewasadyed-in-the-wooltechnocrat:Fullerencounteredtechnocraticthinkingthroughpersonalrelationshipswithleading technocrats, including Scott, Chase, and the Committee onTechnocracy member Frederick Ackerman, as well as with their lessprominent associates such as the engineers Clarence Steinmetz and IrvingLangmuir.…Fullerwouldlatercharacterizehimselfas“alife-longfriendof

HowardScottandStuartChase”andexplainthatalthoughneveramemberofTechnocracy,Inc.,hewas“thoroughlyfamiliarwithitshistoryandhighlysympatheticwithmanyoftheviewsofitsfounders.”184

Inhis1982book,CriticalPath,Fullerwrote,Thisworldelectricgrid,withitsomni-integratedadvantage,willdeliveritselectricenergyanywhere, toanyone,atanyone time,atonecommonrate.This willmake aworld-around uniform costing and pricing system for allgoods and services based realistically on the time-energy metabolicaccountingsystemofUniverse.In this cosmically uniform, common energy-value system for all humanity,costing will be expressed in kilowatthours, watthours and watt-seconds ofwork.Kilowatthourswillbecometheprimecriteriaofcostingtheproductionof the complex ofmetabolic involvements per each functionor item.Theseuniformenergyvaluationswill replaceall theworld’swildly inter-varying,opinion-gambled-upon, top-power-system-manipulatable monetary systems.Thetime-energyworldaccountingsystemwilldoawaywithalltheinequitiesnow occurring in regard to the arbitrarily maneuverable internationalshipping of goods and top economic power structure’s banker-invented,international balance-of-trade accountings. It will eliminate all the trickybanking and securities-markets exploitations of all the around-the-world-time-zoneactivitiesdifferencesinoperationtoday,allunbeknownsttotheat-all-timestwobillionhumanswhoaresleeping.185

If this sounds familiar, it should. It is an unvarnished re-hash of 1930s-styleTechnocracy, except on a global, versus continental, scale. Electricity isdeliveredequally toall, and theprice-basedeconomic system is replacedbya“time-energyworldaccountingsystem”basedonkilowatthours,watthoursandwatt-seconds.There is no evidence that such a systemwill actually work, but that hasn’t

stoppedglobalgroupsfromrushingheadlongintothisglobalinitiative.Take,forinstance,theWorldEconomicForum....WorldEconomicForumandClimateChangeIf a skepticwere toquestion the seriousnessoforganizations likeTerrawatts

andGENI,theyshouldconsiderthattheelitistWorldEconomicForum(WEF)hasthrownitscollectiveweightbehindtheinitiativeandhasmanagedtolinktheadvancementofSmartGridtothereductionofcarbonemissions,thuspromisingatangiblewaytofightglobalwarming.

Founded in 1971, the WEF meets annually in Davos, Switzerland andattendeesaremostly the“who’swho”of theglobalelite. InJanuary2011, theWEFpresentedamajorprogressreportthatstated,AcceleratingSuccessfulSmartGridPilots,aWorldEconomicForumreportdeveloped with Accenture and industry experts, sets out the centrality ofsmart grids as key enablers for a low-carbon economy and in response toincreasingly growing energy demands. Over 60 industry, policy andregulatorystakeholderswereengaged in theAcceleratingSuccessfulSmartGrid Pilots report, to identify the factors that determine the success, orotherwise,ofsmartgridpilots....Thereisanopportunitytolaunchthenextwaveofdevelopmenttowardsalowercarbonenergysystem,andsuccessfulsmartgridpilotswillbeakeystepinthisprocess.186[Emphasisadded]Mark Spelman, Global Head of Strategy at Accenture, participated in the

WEF’sSmartGridWorkshop in2010.Whenasked thequestion,“WhatvaluecanSmartGrid add in thenext 30years?”Spelman replied,“SmartGrids areabsolutely fundamental ifwearegoing toachievesomeofourclimatechangeobjectives.SmartGrids are theglue, theyare the energy internetof the futureandtheyarethecentralcomponentwhichisgoingtobringdemandandsupplytogether.”187

Spelmanmaynot call himself aTechnocrat, but he certainly knowshiswayaroundthelanguageofTechnocracy.TheIEEEStandardsAssociationThe global energy network, or Smart Grid, will operate according to

universally accepted engineering standards that make data and energy flowscompatible with each other. Who will supply such standards? The venerableInstituteofElectricalandElectronicsEngineers,orIEEE.The IEEE claims that it is “the world’s largest professional association

dedicated to advancing technological innovationandexcellence for thebenefitofhumanity.”Founded in1884, ithasbeen involvedwithelectricitystandardsanddevelopmentsinceThomasEdisoninventedthelightbulb.Today,however,the IEEE is massively global with 395,000 members in 160 countries, and itsupportsapproximately900activestandardsinvariousfieldsofengineeringandelectronics.AsitstatesonitsSmartGridwebsite,theIEEEhasstakeditsclaim,inclearlanguage,ontheglobalenergyinitiative:There’s no global organization to oversee all nations’ energy systemstransformations, it is a vastmovement and it’s in its infancy.With our 38

societies and seven councils IEEE is positioned to lead the smart gridinitiative.Throughthemandour395,000members,whoworkintheworld’sacademic, government and private sectors, IEEE touches virtually everyaspectofthesmartgrid.We leverage our strong foundation and inclusive collaboration to evolvestandards, share best practices, publish developments and provide relatededucational offerings to further the smart grid.We are at the forefront ofadvancingtechnologyandfacilitatingsuccessfuldeploymentsthroughouttheworld.Workinghandinhandwithotherleadingorganizationstocreateonesetofstandardsforthesmartgridisthewaywecanensuresuccess.188

IEEE’s bravado is not unwarranted. It truly is the only global organizationcapable of such a monumental task. When given the challenge to unify theglobal energy network, 395,000 engineers should be enough to complete themission!TheIEEEStudentBranchatNorthernIllinoisUniversitynotesontheirweb site that the “IEEE has managed to bring technocrats from all over theworldonasingleplatform.”Indeed.The IEEE-SA (SA stands for Standards Association) is also dedicated to

bringing IoT to life:“WithWIFI and otherwell-known standards under theirbelt,theIEEE-SAisnowputtingtheirattentionontheInternetofThings(IoT)toensurethatthedreamofeverythingconnectedcancometofruition.”189

ItisnotclearwhowilloverseeanyorallfacetsoftheglobalSmartGrid.Theimpliedsuggestionisthatitwillbethesameengineersandglobalcorporationsthat are currently developing it. There is no suggestion anywhere in literaturethatthereisaplanforahand-offoftheresultingsystemtoapoliticalstructurethatservesthepeople.The negative aspects of Smart Grid are seldom mentioned. Take cyber-

security,forinstance.Pictureatech-savvycriminalwhobreaksintoyourenergyprofile data by hacking the computers at your local substation.Based onyourpowerusage,heknowswhenyouarehomeandwhenyouarenothome,whenyou are awake andwhen you are asleep,whether you have a security systemturned on or off, etc. Armed with such information, your possessions andpersonalsafetywouldbeathisdisposal.IntheUnitedStates,SmartGridisescalatingwithoutanylegislativeoversight

or involvement; in other words, it is being implemented exclusively byExecutiveBranchfiat.Thesameistrueinothercountries.Thereisobviouslyasmallgroupofmasterplannersororchestrators,most likely tobe found in thebowelsofeliteorganizationsliketheWorldEconomicForum.

In summary, without a functioning global Smart Grid, Technocracy wouldhavenochanceofsucceedingbecause therewouldbenomeansofcontrollingthe distribution and consumption of energy. Conversely, the completion andactivation of Smart Grid will all but guarantee the full and immediateimplementationofTechnocracy.Ifyouhaveanydoubt,justrememberthesetwospecificrequirementsfromTechnocracyStudyCourse:

Register on a continuous 24 hour-per-day basis the total netconversionofenergy.Bymeansoftheregistrationofenergyconvertedandconsumed,makepossibleabalancedload.190

Ifyouarewonderingwhyyouhaven’theardmoreaboutSmartGridinrecentyears,itisbecausethetechnocraticengineersandtechniciansareoperatingatalevelfarabovetheunderstandingorawarenessofpoliticians,themediaandthegeneralpublic.Wheneverconcernsareraisedastomotiveandagenda,criticismisdeflectedwiththe“It’sgoodfortheconsumer!”mantra.Itisclaimedthattheyarehelping to lowerenergycosts,givingmoreoptions toconsumersandmorefairlydistributinglimitedresourcesforeconomicprogress.Perhapstechnocratsbelievethisthemselves,butIdon’tandneithershouldyou.CarbonCurrencyControl over energy makes possible the original Technocracy goal of

implementingacarbon-basedenergycertificate thatwould replace theexistingprice-basedcurrenciesoftheworld.Suchacurrencywouldalsobethelifebloodofa“greeneconomy”basedonSustainableDevelopment.It is plainly evident today that the world is laboring under a dysfunctional

systemofprice-basedeconomicsasevidencedby therapiddeclineofvalue inpapercurrencies.Theeraoffiat(irredeemablepapercurrency)wasintroducedin1971 when President Richard Nixon decoupled the U.S. dollar from gold.Because the dollar-turned-fiatwas theworld’s primary reserve asset, all othercurrencieseventuallyfollowedsuit,leavingustodaywithaglobalseaofpaperthatisincreasinglyundesired,unstableandunusable.Thedeathlyeconomicstateoftoday’sworldisadirectreflectionofthesumofitssickanddyingcurrencies,butthiscouldsoonchange.ForcesarealreadyatworktopositionanewCarbonCurrencyastheultimate

solutiontoglobalcallsforpovertyreduction,populationcontrol,environmentalcontrol,globalwarming,energyallocationandblanketdistributionofeconomic

wealth.Unfortunatelyforindividualpeoplelivinginthisnewsystem,itwillalsorequireauthoritarianandcentralizedcontroloverallaspectsoflife,fromcradletograve.What is Carbon Currency and how does it work? In a nutshell, Carbon

Currency will be based on the regular allocation of available energy to thepeopleoftheworld.Ifnotusedwithinaperiodoftime,theCurrencywillexpire(like monthly minutes on your cell phone plan) so that the same people canreceive a new allocation based on new energy production quotas for the nextperiod.Because the energy supply chain is already dominated by the global elite,

setting energy production quotaswill limit the amount ofCarbonCurrency incirculation at any one time. It will also naturally limit manufacturing, foodproductionandpeoplemovement.Local currencies could remain in play for a time, but theywould eventually

witherandbefullyreplacedby theCarbonCurrency,muchthesamewaythatthe Euro displaced individual European currencies over a period of time.Technocracy’skeenfocusontheefficientuseofenergyislikelythefirsthintofa sustained ecological/environmental movement in the United States.TechnocracyStudyCoursestated,forinstance,Although it (the earth) is not an isolated system the changes in theconfigurationofmatterontheearth,suchastheerosionofsoil,themakingofmountains, theburningofcoalandoil,and theminingofmetalsarealltypical and characteristic examples of irreversible processes, involving ineachcaseanincreaseofentropy.191

Modern emphasis on curtailing carbon fuel consumption that causes globalwarming and CO2 emissions is essentially a product of early technocraticthinking.Asscientists,HubbertandScotttriedtoexplain(orjustify)theirargumentsin

termsofphysics and the lawof thermodynamicswhich is the studyof energyconversionbetweenheatandmechanicalwork.Again,entropyisaconceptwithinthermodynamicsthatrepresentstheamount

of energy in a system that is no longer available for doingmechanical work.Entropy thus increases asmatter and energy in the systemdegrade toward theultimatestateofinertuniformity.In layman’s terms, entropy means once you use it, you lose it for good.

Furthermore,theendstateofentropyis“inertuniformity”wherenothingtakes

place.Thus,ifmanusesupalltheavailableenergyand/ordestroystheecology,itcannotberepeatedorrestoredeveragain.The technocrat’s avoidance of social entropy is to increase the efficiency of

society by the careful allocation of available energy and measuring ofsubsequentoutputinordertofindastateof“equilibrium”,orbalance.Hubbert’sfocusonentropyisevidencedbyTechnocracy,Inc.’slogo,thewell-knownYinYangsymbolthatdepictsbalance.Tofacilitatethisequilibriumbetweenmanandnature,Technocracyproposed

thatcitizenswouldreceiveEnergyCertificatesinordertooperatetheeconomy:Energy Certificates are issued individually to every adult of the entirepopulation.Therecordofone’sincomeanditsrateofexpenditureiskeptbytheDistributionSequence, so that it is a simplematter at any time for theDistributionSequencetoascertainthestateofagivencustomer’sbalance....WhenmakingpurchasesofeithergoodsorservicesanindividualsurrenderstheEnergyCertificatesproperlyidentifiedandsigned.Thesignificanceofthis,fromthepointofviewofknowledgeofwhatisgoingoninthesocialsystem,andofsocialcontrol,canbestbeappreciatedwhenonesurveysthewholesysteminperspective.First,onesingleorganizationismanningandoperatingthewholesocialmechanism.Thesameorganizationnotonlyproducesbutalsodistributesallgoodsandservices.With this information clearing continuously to a central headquarters wehaveacaseexactlyanalogoustothecontrolpanelofapowerplant,orthebridgeofanoceanliner.192

Twokeydifferencesbetweenprice-basedmoneyandEnergyCertificatesarethat a) money is generic to the holder while Certificates are individuallyregistered to each citizen andb)moneypersistswhileCertificates expire.Thelatter facetwouldgreatlyhinder, ifnotaltogetherprevent, theaccumulationofwealthandproperty.

TransitionAt the start of WWII, Technocracy’s popularity dwindled as economic

prosperityreturned;however,boththeorganizationanditsphilosophysurvived.Today, there are two principal websites representing Technocracy in North

America:Technocracy,Inc., located inFerndale,Washington, is representedatwww.technocracy.org.Asisterorganization inVancouver,BritishColumbia isTechnocracyVancouverandcanbefoundatwww.technocracyvan.ca.While Technocracy’s original focuswas exclusively on theNorthAmerican

continent, it isnowgrowingrapidlyinEuropeandotherindustrializednations.Forinstance,theNetworkofEuropeanTechnocrats(NET)wasformedin2005as “an autonomous research and social movement that aims to explore anddevelopboththetheoryanddesignoftechnocracy.”193TheNETwebsiteclaimstohavemembersaroundtheworld.Ofcourse,afewminorleagueorganizationsandtheirwebsitescannothopeto

createorimplementaglobalenergypolicy,butit’snotbecausetheideasaren’tstill alive and well. A more likely influence on modern thinking is due toHubbert’sPeakOilTheory(e.g.,theearthwasrunningoutofoil)introducedin1954.Ithasfiguredprominently in theecological/environmentalmovement.Infact, theentireglobalwarmingmovement indirectlysitson topof theHubbertPeakTheory.AstheCanadianAssociationfortheClubofRomerecentlystated,“Theissueofpeakoilimpingesdirectlyontheclimatechangequestion.”194

TheModernProposalBecause of the connection between the environmental movement, global

warmingandtheTechnocraticconceptofEnergyCertificates,onewouldexpectthataCarbonCurrencywouldbesuggestedfromthatparticularcommunity,andinfact,thisisthecase.In1995,JudithHannawroteinNewScientist,TowardaSingleCarbonCurrency, “My proposal is to set a global quota for fossil fuelcombustion every year, and to share it equally between all the adults in theworld.”195

In2004,theprestigiousHarvardInternationalReview(HIR)publishedANewCurrencyandstated,Forthosekeentoslowglobalwarming,themosteffectiveactionsareinthecreation of strong national carbon currencies. For scholars andpolicymakers,thekeytaskistominehistoryforguidesthataremoreuseful.Globalwarmingisconsideredanenvironmentalissue,butitsbestsolutionsarenottobefoundinthecanonofenvironmentallaw.Carbon’subiquityintheworld economydemands that cost be a consideration in any regime tolimitemissions.Indeed,emissionstradinghasbeenanointedkingbecauseitis the most responsive to cost. And since trading emissions for carbon ismore akin to trading currency than eliminating a pollutant, policymakersshouldbe lookingat tradeand financewithaneye tohowcarbonmarketsshouldbegoverned.Wemustanticipatethepolicychallengesthatwillariseas this bottom-up system emerges, including the governance of seamsbetween each of the nascent trading systems, liability rules for boguspermits,andjudicialcooperation.196[Emphasisadded]HIRconcludesthat“aftersevenyearsofspinningwheelsandwronganalogies,

the international regime tocontrol carbon isheaded, albeit tentatively,downaproductivepath.”197

In 2006, UK Environment Secretary David Miliband spoke to the AuditCommissionAnnualLectureandflatlystated,Imagine a country where carbon becomes a new currency. We carrybankcards that store both pounds and carbon points. When we buyelectricity,gasand fuel,weuseourcarbonpoints,aswellaspounds.Tohelp reduce carbon emissions, the Government would set limits on theamountofcarbonthatcouldbeused.198[Emphasisadded]In2007,NewYorkTimes published“WhenCarbon IsCurrency”byHannah

Fairfield. She pointedly stated “Tobuild a carbonmarket, its originatorsmust

createacurrencyofcarboncreditsthatparticipantscantrade.”199

PointCarbon, a leading global consultancy, is partnered with Bank of NewYorkMellontoassessrapidlygrowingcarbonmarkets.In2008theypublished“TowardsaCommonCarbonCurrency:Exploring theProspects for IntegratedGlobal Carbon Markets.“ This report discussed both environmental andeconomicefficiencyinasimilarcontextasoriginallyseenwithHubbertin1933.Finally, on November 9, 2009, the Telegraph (UK) presented an article:

“Everyone in Britain could be given a personal ‘carbon allowance’” thatsuggested,Implementingindividualcarbonallowancesforeverypersonwillbethemosteffectivewayofmeetingthetargetsforcuttinggreenhousegasemissions.Itwould involvepeoplebeing issuedwithauniquenumberwhich theywouldhand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbonfootprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity. Like with a bankaccount,astatementwouldbesentouteachmonthtohelppeoplekeeptrackofwhattheyareusing.Iftheir“carbonaccount”hitszero,theywouldhavetopaytogetmorecredits.200

As you can see, these references are hardlyminor league in terms of eitherauthorshiporcontent.At thevery least, theundercurrentofearlyTechnocraticthoughthasfinallyreachedtheshorewherethewavesarelappingatthebeach,withthepotentialtomorphintoariptideundertherightcircumstances.Technocracy’sEnergyCardPrototypeInJuly1937,anarticlebyHowardScottinTechnocracyMagazinedescribed

an Energy Distribution Card in great detail. It declared that using such aninstrument as a “means of accounting is a part of Technocracy’s proposedchangeinthecourseofhowoursocioeconomicsystemcanbeorganized.”201

Scottfurtherwrote,Thecertificatewillbeissueddirectlytotheindividual.Itisnontransferableandnonnegotiable;therefore,itcannotbestolen,lost,loaned,borrowed,orgivenaway.Itisnoncumulative;therefore,itcannotbesaved,anditdoesnotaccrue or bear interest. It need not be spent but loses its validity after adesignatedtimeperiod.202

This may have seemed like science fiction in 1937, but today it is whollyachievable.In2010Technocracy,Inc.offeredanupdatedideaofwhatsuchanEnergyDistributionCardmightlooklike.Theirwebsitestates,It is now possible to use a plastic card similar to today’s credit card

embedded with a microchip. This chip could contain all the informationneeded to create an energy distribution card as described in this booklet.Since thesame informationwouldbeprovided inwhatever formsbestsuitsthe latest technology, however, the concept of an “Energy DistributionCard”iswhatisexplainedhere.203

Thecardwouldalsoserveasauniversalidentitycardandcontainamicrochip.This reflects Technocracy’s philosophy that each person in society must bemeticulouslymonitoredandaccountedforinordertotrackwhattheyconsumeintermsofenergyandalsowhattheycontributetothemanufacturingprocess.

CarbonMarketPlayersThemodernsystemofcarboncreditswasaninventionoftheKyotoProtocol

and started to gain momentum in 2002 with the establishment of the firstdomestic economy-wide trading scheme in the U.K. After becominginternationallawin2005,thetradingmarketisnowpredictedtoreach$3trillionby2020orearlier.Graciela Chichilnisky, director of the Columbia Consortium for Risk

Management and a designer of the carbon credit text of the Kyoto Protocol,states that the carbonmarket “is therefore all about cashand trading”but it isalsoawaytoaprofitableandgreenerfuture.204Whoarethe“traders”whoprovidetheopendoortoallthisprofit?Currently

leadingthepackareJPMorganChase,GoldmanSachsandMorganStanley.Bloombergnotedin“CarbonCapitalists”onDecember4,2009thatThebanksarepreparingtodowithcarbonwhatthey’vedonebefore:designandmarketderivativescontractsthatwillhelpclientcompanieshedgetheirprice risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-relatedfinancialproductstooutsideinvestors.205

At JP Morgan, the woman who originally invented Credit Default Swaps,BlytheMasters,isnowheadofthedepartmentthatwilltradecarboncreditsforthe bank. Considering the sheer force of global banking giants behind carbontrading, it’s nowonder analysts are already predicting that the carbonmarketwillsoondwarfallothercommoditiestrading.IfM.KingHubbertandotherearlyarchitectsofTechnocracywerealivetoday,

theywouldbeverypleasedtoseetheseedsoftheir ideasonenergyallocationgrowtobearfruitonsuchalargescale.In1933,thetechnologydidn’texisttoimplement a system of Energy Certificates. However, with today’s ever-advancingcomputertechnology,theentireworldcouldeasilybemanagedonasinglecomputer.Of course, a currency is merely a means to an end. Whoever controls the

currencywouldalsocontrol theeconomyandthegovernancesystemthatgoeswith it. Technocracy and energy-based accounting are not idle or theoreticalissues. If the global elite intends for Carbon Currency to supplant nationalcurrencies, then the world economic and political systems will also befundamentallychangedforever.

172Hubbert&Scott,p.232.173“TheSmartGrid:AnIntroduction”,DepartmentofEnergypublication,(2010),P.1.(http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oeprod/DocumentsandMedia/DOE_SG_Book_Single_Pages%281%29.pdf).

174“RecoveryActSelectionsforSmartGridInvestmentGrantAwards”,DepartmentofEnergy,2010.175“Northwestteambidson$178millionregionalsmartgriddemonstrationproject”,BattelleNewsRelease,August27,2009.176Leopard,“Bigdataappsseendrivingsmartgridrollout”,EETimes,December12,2012(http://www.eetimes.com/design/power-management-design/4403367/-Big-data--).177“DepartmentofEnergyPuttingPowerintheHandsofConsumersThroughTechnology”,DOE,January9,2008.178PacificNorthwestNationalLaboratorywebsite(http://www.pnl.gov/).179“WiFifortheSmartGrid”,WiFiAlliance,September2010,(http://www.wi-fi.org/sites/default/files/membersonly/wp_wifi_smart_grid_with_security_faq_20100912.pdf).180“AveragePriceOfElectricityClimbsToAll-TimeRecord”,CNSNews,July29,2014.181“IMFurgeshigherenergytaxestofightclimatechange”,Reuters,July31,2014.182“HowItalyBeattheWorldtoaSmarterGrid”,BusinessWeek,November16,2009.183Terrawatts.comhomepage,2009(http://www.terrawatts.com).184Chu,“NewviewsonR.BuckminsterFuller”,(StanfordUniversityPress,2009),p.109.185BuckminsterFuller,CriticalPath,(SaintMartin’sGriffin1982).186“EnergyIndustryPartnershipProgramme”,WorldEconomicForum,January2011.187InterviewwithMarkSpelman,WEF,SmartGridWorkshop,Davos,Switzerland,2010188IIEWebsite,(http://smartgrid.ieee.org/standards).189“Standards:TheConnectiveTissueBehindtheInternetofThings”,TechVibes,March22,2013(http://www.techvibes.com/blog/connective-tissue-internet-of-things-2013-03-22).190Hubbert&Scott,p.232.191Ibid.,p.49.192Ibid.,p.238-239.193Seehttp://www.eoslife.eu/.NamechangedtoEarthOrganizationforSustainability.194JohnH.Walsh,“TheImpendingTwinCrisis:OneSetofSolutions?”,(CanadianAssociationfortheClubofRome),p.5.195JudithHanna,“Towardasinglecarboncurrency”,NewScientist,April29,1995.196“ANewCurrency”,HarvardInternationalReview,May6,2006.197Ibid.198“PolluteLessandYouCouldCashIn,BritonsTold”,WorldEnvironmentNews,July20,2006.199HannahFairfield,“WhenCarbonIsCurrency”,TheNewYorkTimes,May6,2007.200“EveryoneinBritaincouldbegivenapersonal‘carbonallowance’”,TheTelegraph(UK),November9,2009.201HowardScott,“AnEnergyDistributionCard”,TechnocracyMagazine,1937202Ibid.203“AnEnergyDistributionCard”,Technocracy,Inc.,website,2009.204GracielaChichilnisky,“WhoNeedsACarbonMarket?”,EnvironmentalLeader,January10,2010.205“CarbonCapitalistsWarmingtoClimateMarketUsingDerivatives”,Bloomberg,December4,2009.

V

CHAPTER9

THETOTALSURVEILLANCESOCIETYProvidespecificregistrationoftheconsumptionofeachindividual,plusarecordanddescriptionoftheindividual.202-TechnocracyStudyCourse

irtuallyeveryoneknowsthatsometypeofspymachineinWashingtonis collecting untold amounts of information on every citizen: Emails,

phonecalls, credit card transactions, health records, biometric information andsoon.Mostareindenialastothenatureandscopeofit.AmongtheNationalSecurityAgency(NSA),FederalBureauofInvestigation

(FBI),theCentralIntelligenceAgency(CIA)andtheDepartmentofHomelandSecurity(DHS),nostoneisleftunturnedtoharvestallavailableelectronicdata.But, what is available? According to documents leaked by whistle-blowerEdward Snowden, the NSA’s top-secret Project Prism has relationships withnine principal Internet companies, including Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!,Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL and Apple, to collect all email,privatemessagingandotherprivatecommunications.203

SucharealizationfliesinthefaceofofficialNSApropaganda.Eventwoyearsafter the initialSnowden revelations, theNSA’sofficialwebsite still states thefollowinginaQ&Asectiononoversight:[Q]HowcanIfindoutifthegovernmenthasrecordsonme?[A]Both theFreedomofInformationAct(FOIA)andthePrivacyAct(PA)establish procedures for individuals to seek access to government records.The FOIA is a statute that gives anyone the right to seek access togovernmentrecords.SinceNSAisauthorizedbylawtocollectonlyforeignintelligenceinformation,wewouldnotordinarilyexpecttofindintelligenceinformationaboutU.S.persons.AlthoughyoumaysubmitaFOIArequestforintelligencerecords,becauseourintelligenceactivitiesareclassified,wegenerally areunable toacknowledgewhetherornotwehold intelligenceinformationonindividuals.204[Emphasisadded]Thus,eveniftheNSAisbreakingthelaw(whichitis)bycollectingmountains

of data onU.S.Citizens (which they are), don’t expect to ever find out aboutyourrecordsbecausetheyareclassifiedandthereforenoneofyourbusiness.Onthesurfaceofit,itmayseemthattheNSAhas“gonerogue”andhastakenona

life formof itsown.Wewillsoondiscover thatnothingcouldbefurther fromthetruth.Anearlierwhistle-blower,retiredAT&TtechnicianMarkKlein,revealedthat

theNSAhadinstalledasecret“listeningroom”atamajortrunkfacilityownedbyAT&TinSanFrancisco.Everyphonecallpassingthroughthecallcenterwassecretly siphoned off by the NSA for storage and analysis.205 The NSA wasslapped hard by public outcries and even Congressional inquiry, but it didnothing to stop the phone call collection program; in fact, within two years,majorAT&T trunk facilities in other cities hadbeen set up and the collectionexpanded.By2013,itwasrevealedthatVerizonhadalsobecomepartofthespynetwork.AccordingtoTheGuardian(UK),TheNationalSecurityAgencyiscurrentlycollectingthetelephonerecordsofmillions of US customers of Verizon, one of America’s largest telecomsproviders,underatopsecretcourtorderissuedinApril….Theorder,acopyof which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an“ongoing,dailybasis”togivetheNSAinformationonalltelephonecallsinitssystems,bothwithintheUSandbetweentheUSandothercountries.206

Therewerelawsuitsfiledbycitizengroupsagainsttheoutrageousbetrayalbycommercial entities like AT&T, Verizon and Microsoft, but they were futilebecause in 2008, Congress retroactively amended the Foreign IntelligenceSurveillanceActof1978toread,Releasefromliability.—Nocauseofactionshalllieinanycourtagainstanyelectronic communication service provider for providing any information,facilities,orassistanceinaccordancewith[anorder/request/directiveissuedbytheAttorneyGeneralortheDirectorofNationalIntelligence.]207

Caseclosed.Thedoorwas thrownwide-openforacompleteco-optingofallcommunication and Internet companies by the Executive Branch of the U.S.Government. Do you have Verizon or AT&T? Every phone call is beingrecorded.DoyouhaveaGmailorAOLaccount?Everyemailisbeingrecorded.Do you use Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter? Every post is recorded. And,needless to say, it is all tied to your master file, providing for a convenientwarrantlesssearchatanytimeinthefuture.All of this data is being siphoned off and stored in massive data centers,

recently constructed, toprepare for thenextphaseof theoperationwhichwillfocusonanalysis.Fortunatelyforus,itisestimatedthatonlyonepercentofallcollected data is currently being analyzed, and the reason for this is that datastorage technologyhasracedaheadofrawcomputerprocessingpowerandthe

algorithms necessary for analyses. This imbalancewill not last for long sincemassive projects are already underway to create super-computers that will beable to process huge amounts of data within seconds. In addition, brand newcomputing technologiesarebeingdeveloped,suchasquantumcomputing, thatwillincreaseexistingcomputingpowerbyafactorofseveralthousandtimes.Toreiterate,thecollectionofdataisalreadyafaitaccompli,buttheanalysisofthedata is still ahead. To a technocrat,what the data says in a nominalway is atrivialissue.Rather,theelementsofcontrolcomeintofocusonlywhenhelearnswhat thedatameansandwhat itcanpredictabout thefuture.Suchknowledgewillbeaproductofanalysisandnotcollection.EnterBigDataWhen computer engineers talk about “big data”, it engenders a mental

disconnectwithmostpeople.Whatisbigdata?Andwhatwouldanyonewanttodowithit?The simplest concept of big data refers to any database that is too large for

traditional datamanagement tools to be used for storage, retrieval, correlationandanalysis.Thequestionis,whatistoolargetobe“big”.When the original Apple Macintosh computer was unveiled in 1984, it

containeda31/2inchfloppydiskthatcouldhold400,000bytesofinformation,or400K.The “K”denotesKilobytes, or thousandsofbytes, anda singlebytewas enough to express one letter in the English alphabet. In 1986, the worldeagerlyreceivedthenextMacintoshversionthatexpandedstorageto800K.Ataboutthesametime,thePCindustryintroducedthe1,440Kfloppydiskthatthenbecamethestandardofportabledisksforseveralyearsthereafter.Thecolloquialterm used to describe this latter disk was 1.44MB, where the MB meansMegabytes.WhenIBMcameoutwiththefirst5MBharddrive,therewasrealexcitement.

Programmerswereecstaticbecausetheynowhadroomtoworkwithsome“realdata”.Most of us can relate to these smaller numbers, and perhaps a little larger.

After the 1,000MB threshold was broken, the industry started talking aboutGigabytes. A hard drive with 5GB of storage simply meant 5,000MB. Thestartingsizefornewpersonalcomputerstodayisaroundthe500GBrange,evenformostlaptopcomputers.Soyoumaybethinkinghowcouldlifegetanybetterandwhatwouldyouneedanymorestorageforanyway?

Wearegettingclosertobigdata,butnotcloseenough.Becauseofaneedtostore commercial video files, I recently purchased a whopping 4,000GB diskdrivethatwasbilledintermsofTerabytesasa4TBmonster.Ifitwerenotforstoringlargevideoandgraphicsfiles,IhavenoideahowIwouldusethatmuchspace!Whereas the original 400K floppy could store the equivalent of a 100page book, just three ofmy 4TB drives could store the entire contents of theLibraryofCongress.Needlesstosay,Terabytesmeansseriousbusinesswhenitcomes tomassive data storage, butwe have barely touched the realm of “bigdata”.Tosummarizeandextendthisprogressionofthinking,

Size Term

1,000Bytes Kilobyte(KB)

1,000Kilobytes Megabyte(MB)

1,000Megabytes Gigabyte(GB)

1,000Gigabytes Terabyte(TB)

1,000Terabytes Petabyte(PB)

1,000Petabytes Exabyte(EB)

1,000Exabytes Zettabyte(ZB)

1,000Zettabytes Yottabyte(YB)

ConsiderwhatyoucandoatthePetabytelevel:

OnePetabytecanstore theDNAofeveryman,womanandchild intheUnitedStates,threetimesover.Thehumanbraincanstoreabout2.5Petabytesofdata.OnePetabyteofMP3-encodedmusicwouldtake2,000yearstoplay.A one Petabyte file could contain a 3 Megabyte profile of everypersoninAmerica.

Whenweget to theZettabyte level, it is almost inconceivable.A studywasconducted in2012showing that thedigitalcontentof theentireworldwas2.8Zettabytesandthatitwoulddoublethatsizeaboutevery30months.Nowthisisbigdata!OneZettabyteisrepresentedbythenumber10with21zerosafterit.ItrepresentsonebillionTerabytesorone trillionGigabytes.Let’snoteven thinkaboutYottabytes.Asof2011,noorganizationintheworldwasabletohouseevenoneZettabyte

ofdata.However,byfallof2013,theNationalSecurityAgency(NSA)finisheditsnew$1.5billion spycenter inUtah that alonehas a reported capacityof5Zettabytesoralmosttwicethesizeofalldigitaldataintheworld.NowyoucanseewhytheNSAvacuumsupallthedatainsight:Becauseitcan.The NSA’s Utah data center has had a lot of criticism, none of which has

sloweditsprogressintheslightest.However,notethatReutersreportedin2013avitalconnectiontoanevenhigherintelligenceoperation:TheNSAis theexecutiveagentfor theOfficeof theDirectorofNationalIntelligence, andwillbe the leadagencyat the facility,but thecenterwillalsohelpotheragencies,includingtheDepartmentofHomelandSecurity,inprotecting national security networks, according to aNSA news release.208[Emphasisadded]Hereweseetwokeypoints.First,theUtahfacilitydoesn’tbelongtotheNSA

at all! Instead, it really belongs to the Office of the Director of NationalIntelligence(ODNI)withtheNSAbeingonlythe“leadagency”atthefacility.Second,weseethattheNSAisonlyanagencyoftheODNIandreportsdirectlytoit.Inotherwords,theODNIiswheremarchingorders,fundingandoversightcomefrom.ItisthereforeworthwhiletoexaminetheODNImoreclosely.

OfficeoftheDirectorofNationalIntelligenceThe Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA)

provided sweeping reform to the U.S. Intelligence community. With theexperience of 9/11 still fresh in mind and a seemingly impotent intelligenceapparatus, Congress passed the 235-page IRTPA with overwhelming supportfrombothDemocratsandRepublicans.However, IRTPAopened thefloodgatefor the unbridled collection of data in order to build a national repository ofinformationonvirtuallyeverypersonintheUnitedStates.TitleI,SubtitleAofIRTPAwaslabeledEstablishmentofDirectorofNational

Intelligence and was created for the “reorganization and improvement ofmanagement of the intelligence community.” The Director of NationalIntelligence(DNI)wastobeappointedbythePresidentwithadviceandconsentfromtheSenate.TheappointeeanswereddirectlytothePresidentbutwasnotamember of the President’s Cabinet. Authority was granted to serve as theundisputedheadoftheintelligencecommunitywithdirectresponsibilityoverall16intelligenceagenciesscatteredthroughoutgovernment;notably,thisincludedtheCIA,FBIandHomelandSecurity.TheDNI’sauthoritywassweeping:The Director of National Intelligence shall have access to all nationalintelligence and intelligence related to the national security which iscollected by any Federal department, agency, or other entity, except asotherwiseprovidedbylawor,asappropriate,underguidelinesagreeduponby the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.209[Emphasisadded]Further,theintelligencegatheredandmadepossiblebytheDNIwastobefirst

provided to the President, then to heads of departments and agencies of theexecutivebranch, then to theChairmanof the JointChiefsofStaff and seniormilitarycommanders,andfinallytotheSenateandHouseofRepresentatives.Theczar-likestatusoftheDNIisunderscoredbythefactthatheisresponsible

for not only overall intelligence strategy but also operational management,funding and allocation of programs in all sub-agencies. The IRTPA furtherstatedthat“TheDirectorofNationalIntelligenceshall-(A)establishuniformsecuritystandardsandprocedures;(B) establish common information technology standards, protocols, andinterfaces;(C) ensure development of information technology systems that includemulti-levelsecurityandintelligenceintegrationcapabilities;

(D)establishpoliciesandprocedurestoresolveconflictsbetweentheneedtoshare intelligence informationand the need toprotect intelligence sourcesandmethods;(E)developanenterprisearchitecturefor the intelligencecommunityandensure that elements of the intelligence community comply with sucharchitecture;and(F) haveprocurement approval authority over all enterprise architecture-related information technology items funded in the National IntelligenceProgram.210[Emphasisadded]Theearlierstatementthatthe“NSAistheexecutiveagentfortheOfficeofthe

DirectorofNationalIntelligence”nowmakesperfectsense.Inshort,theheadoftheNSAanswersdirectly to theDirectorofNational Intelligenceand receivesfrom him direction and strategy, funding and oversight. Who ordered andapproved the $1.5 billion budget for the NSA’s massive five Zettabyte datacenter in Utah? The Director. Who ordered and approved the data center’soperational objectives and policies? TheDirector.Who ordered and approvedmassive spying operations involving AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, Facebook,Apple,Skype,etc.?TheDirector.Whoorderedandcreatedtheoverallstrategyofbuildinganationaldatabasewithallthisdatainthefirstplace?TheDirector.So, who was the first Director that initially created, staffed, funded and

organizedtheoriginalOfficeoftheDirectorofNationalIntelligencein2005?Itwas none other than Trilateral Commission member John Negroponte,appointedbythen-PresidentGeorgeW.Bush.BushwasneveramemberoftheTrilateralCommission, but his father,GeorgeH.W.Bushwas.Most notably,Bush’sVice-President,DickCheney,wasalsoamember.NegroponteheldhisDNIposition fromApril21,2005 throughFebruary13,

2007,oralmosttwoyears.BushthenappointedViceAdmiralJohnMcConnellwho held on until January 27, 2009, or eight days into the first Obamaadministrationwhenhewassacked.Obamaobviouslywantedtohavehis“ownguy”asDNIbutwhodidheappoint?YoumightalreadyhaveguesseditwasyetanothermemberoftheTrilateralCommission,AdmiralDennisC.Blair!It would be stating the obvious that Technocracy and the Trilateral

Commissionarealwaysseenabovethetwo-partycontinuum,neitherRepublicanor Democrat. With equal aplomb, their members surrounded Obama just aseasilyas theydidBush.Asfaras the technocratic intelligencecommunitywasconcerned, a change in political leadershipmeant nothing in terms of pushingforwardwith theirpre-conceivedTotalSurveillanceSociety;onemight rightly

wonderwhoisincontrolofwhom.Infact,measuringandmonitoringisthelife-bloodofTechnocracy,rememberingthatthefifthrequirementasnotedearlieristo “Provide specific registration of the consumption of each individual, plus arecord and description of the individual.” The current total surveillancementalityisahand-in-glovefit!Americanswerewarnedofthedangersofsuchtechnologybeingusedagainst

the American people. In 1975, Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) clearly andpointedlystated,ThechairmanoftheSenatepanelprobingU.S.Intelligenceagenciessaysthegovernmenthas the technological capacity to impose “total tyranny” if adictatorevercametopower.“Therewouldbenoplacetohide,”Sen.FrankChurch(D-Idaho),chairmanofthecommittee,saidSundayonNBC’sMeetthePress.Churchsaid theeavesdropping technologygiven thegovernmentby intelligence agencies would enable the government to impose totaltyranny“andtherewouldbenowaytofightbackbecausethemostcarefulefforttocombinetogetherinresistancetothegovernment,nomatterhowprivatelyitwasdone,iswithinthereachofthegovernmenttoknow,suchisthecapabilityofthistechnology.”211[Emphasisadded]In 1961, outgoing President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in his farewell

speech,…inholding scientific researchanddiscovery in respect,aswe should,wemustalsobealerttotheequalandoppositedangerthatpublicpolicycoulditselfbecomethecaptiveofascientific-technologicalelite.212

In1975and1961,nobodyhadany ideaofwhatChurchorEisenhowerweretalkingabout.In2014,however,thefruitofa“scientific-technologicalelite”isalltooevidentandalltooencompassing.IfHitlercouldhavesomehowgrabbedholdoftoday’ssurveillancetechnologybackin1935,thewholeworldwouldbespeaking German today, and all of his perceived enemies would have beensummarilydestroyed.DataFusionandFusionCentersMost of the data collection network established by the DNI operates on a

nationaland internationalscale.For instance,collectingphonecalls,emailandmessagingrecordsonlyrequiresasmallnumberofentrypoints,suchasphonecompaniesandemailservices.Sinceemailrecordsarevirtuallyidenticalacrossall emailproviders, there isnodata inconsistency invacuumingeverythingupand putting it into a common database. The same applies for phone calls,

bankingrecordsandconsumertransactionaldata.At the state level where volumes of critical data are found, such

standardizationisseldomseen.Moststatedatasystemswere“homegrown”andhence, different from state to state. To further exacerbate the problem,communities within each state built their own local systems that had little incommonwithaneighboringcityorcounty.Overtheyears,amyriadofsoftwarecompanies offered different flavors of database software, some radicallydifferentthanothers.Programmershaveuseddifferenttechniquestodefineanddescribethesamedatafromprojecttoproject.Inshort,youcannotjustthrowallof this data into a melting pot and expect anything other than meaninglessgarbagetocomeouttheotherend.Thisiswheretheconceptof“datafusion”isapplied,wheredifferentdatabases

arecomparedsothata)connectorscanbebuilttobridgethedifferencesandb)missing pieces of data in one database can be fabricated in another. In fact,creatingmissingdataelementsoutofthinair,basedonimplicationsfromotherpiecesofdata,isakeyconceptinthe“fusion”process.The Federal intelligence juggernaut saw fit to go after all of this state-level

data and thus created the concept of Fusion Centers that would survey, map,collectandcoordinatethetransmissionoflocalinformationtothenationallevel.EachstateinAmericahasatleastonelocalFusionCenter.Infact,accordingtothe Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website, there were 78 FusionCentersoperatingintheUnitedStatesasofJanuary2014.Former DHS head Janet Napolitano described Fusion Centers in testimony

before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Homeland Security in2012:These centers analyze information and identify trends to share timelyintelligence with federal, state, and local law enforcement includingDHS,which then further shares this information with other members of theIntelligence Community. In turn, DHS provides relevant and appropriatethreat information from the Intelligence Community back to the fusioncenters.Today,thereare72state-andlocally-runfusioncentersinoperationacrossthenation,upfromahandfulin2006.Ourgoalistomakeeveryoneof these fusion centers a center of analytic excellence that provides useful,actionable information about threats to law enforcement and firstresponders.213

However, Napolitano’s rhetoric did not hold up to scrutiny for long. OnOctober 3, 2012, the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

releaseditsscathingreport,FederalSupportForAndInvolvementInStateAndLocal Fusion Centers. Judicial Watch summarized this 141-page report asfollows:Nine yearsandmore than$300million later, thenational [fusion] centershavefailedtoprovideanyvaluableinformation,accordingtoinvestigators.Instead they have forwarded “intelligence of uneven quality – oftentimesshoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens’ civil liberties andPrivacy Act protections, occasionally taken from already-published publicsources,andmoreoftenthannotunrelatedtoterrorism.”Areviewofmorethan a year of fusion center reports nationwide determined that theywereirrelevant, useless or inappropriate. None uncovered any terrorist threatsnordidtheycontributetothedisruptionofanactiveterroristplot,thereportsays. In fact,DHSofficialsacknowledgedthat the informationproducedbythe fusioncenterswas“predominantlyuseless”.Onebranchchiefactuallysaid,“abunchofcrapiscomingthrough.”214

ThiswritersuggeststhatthecriteriaforjudgingtheDHS’sFusionCentersmayhave beenwrong. Instead of usingNapolitano’s baseline, perhaps they shouldhavepaidcloserattentiontothis2006DepartmentofJusticedocument:Fusion centers will allow information from all sources to be readilygathered,analyzed,andexchanged,baseduponthepredicate,byprovidingaccess to a variety of disparate databases that are maintained andcontrolledbyappropriate local,state, tribal,and federalrepresentativesatthefusioncenter.215[Emphasisadded]Thus, the true roleofFusionCenters is to simply“fuse”data fromdisparate

databasesatthelocalandstatelevelandfeedtheresulttothenationallevel.Nopublicly available studies using this criteria have been found thatmeasure thevalueof theFusionCenternetwork toFederalagencies like theNSA.Perhapsactionsspeaklouderthanwords:TheFusionCenterprogramisstillfullyfundedandsixmoreFusionCentershavebeenaddedsinceNapolitano’stestimony!

ConclusionAnyengineerknowsthatyoucannotcontrolwhatyoucannotmonitor.Thus,

Technocracy requires an all-encompassing data collection and intelligencefunction in order tomonitor and control all elements of society and economicactivity. To a technocrat, there is no such thing as “too much data”. Whencollecting becomes an end in itself, participants quickly display symptoms ofclassicalhoardingdisorderasdescribedbyMayoClinic:

A persistent difficulty discarding or parting with possessions because of aperceivedneed to save them.Apersonwithhoardingdisorder experiencesdistressatthethoughtofgettingridoftheitems.Excessiveaccumulationofitems,regardlessofactualvalue,occurs.Such is the state of today’s Total Surveillance Society, created to serve

Technocracyonly,whileexcludinganybenefit for individuals,groupsorevensocietyatlarge.Whilethismayseemcompletelyirrationaltoyou,itisperfectlyrationaltoatechnocrat.It is also noteworthy that the guardians of the technocrat chickens are

technocrat foxes themselves, and together they have successfully removedthemselves from any effective oversight or control byCongress, state or localofficials,allofwhichhavebeencompletelyineffectiveatreigningintheirdatavacuumjuggernaut.

202Hubbert&Scott,1934,p.225.

203“NSAslidesexplainPRISM”,TheWashingtonPost,June6,2013.204(http://www.nsa.gov/about/faqs/oversight.shtml).205“TheNSAWiretappingStoryThatNobodyWanted”,PCWorld,July17,2009.206“NSAcollectingphonerecordsofmillionsofVerizoncustomersdaily”,TheGuardian(UK),June5,2003.207“FISAAmendmentsActof2008”–Section702,subsectionh,paragraph3;Section703,subsectione,(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6304enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6304enr.pdf).208“U.S.agencydeniesdatacentertomonitorcitizens’emails”,Reuters,April15,2013.209IRTPA,Sec.102A,p.7.210Ibid.,p.13.211“DictatorCouldImposeTotalTyrannyinU.S.,ChurchSays”,TheTimes-News,August16,1975.212Eisenhower’sFarewellAddresstotheNation,January17,1961.213TestimonyofDHSSecretaryJanetNapolitanoBeforetheUnitedStatesHouseofRepresentativesCommitteeonHomelandSecurity,“UnderstandingtheHomelandThreatLandscape-Considerationsforthe112thCongress”.214“DHSCoversUpFailuresofU.S.CounterterrorismCenters”,JudicialWatch,Oct.3,2012.215“FusionCenterGuidelines”,DepartmentofJusticeandDepartmentofHomelandSecurity,August2006.

TCHAPTER10

TRANSFORMINGHUMANITYHEMASTER

STRATEGYOFTECHNOCRACYANDITSGOALOFGLOBALTRANSFORMATIONHASALREADYBEEN

DETAILEDINTHECHAPTERSTRANSFORMING

ECONOMICS,TRANSFORMINGGOVERNMENTANDTRANSFORMINGRELIGION.BUT,THEREISONE

LASTCONSIDERATION:WHATABOUTTHEPEOPLEOFTHEWORLDTHEMSELVES?ARETHEYSUITEDTO

LIVEINATECHNOCRACYWITHOUTFURTHERCHANGINGTHEVERYFABRICOFLIFEITSELF?OR,PERHAPSISITJUSTTHEELITETECHNOCRATSWHO

NEEDTOBECHANGED?THISBRINGSUSTOANIMPORTANTDISCUSSIONONTRANSHUMANS,

POSTHUMANSANDTRANSHUMANISM,WITHOUT

WHICHTHISBOOKWOULDSIMPLYBEINADEQUATE.ONEPROMINENTLEADERINTHEMOVEMENT

DEFINESTRANSHUMANISMAS…ACOMMITMENTTOOVERCOMINGHUMANLIMITSINALLTHEIRFORMS

INCLUDINGEXTENDINGLIFESPAN,AUGMENTING

INTELLIGENCE,PERPETUALLYINCREASINGKNOWLEDGE,ACHIEVINGCOMPLETECONTROLOVER

OURPERSONALITIESANDIDENTITIESANDGAININGTHEABILITYTOLEAVETHEPLANET.

TRANSHUMANISTSSEEKTOACHIEVETHESEGOALSTHROUGHREASON,SCIENCEANDTECHNOLOGY.215

Anotherputsitthisway:Philosophies of life that seek the continuation and acceleration of theevolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and humanlimitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promotingprinciplesandvalues.216

ATranshumanisapersonwhobelievesintranshumanism,andviewshimselfas“intransition”towardbecomingposthuman,astatewhichnoonehasactuallyachieved as yet; according to the following definition, you can see why:“Posthuman” is a term used by transhumanists to refer towhat humans couldbecome if we succeed in using technology to remove the limitations of thehumancondition.Noonecanbecertainexactlywhatposthumanswouldbelikebut we can understand the term by contrasting it with “human”: Posthumanswould be those who have overcome the biological, neurological, andpsychological constraints built into humans by the evolutionary process.Posthumans would have a far greater ability to reconfigure and sculpt theirphysical form and function; they would have an expanded range of refinedemotional responses, and would possess intellectual and perceptual abilitiesenhancedbeyondthepurelyhumanrange.Posthumanswouldnotbesubjecttobiologicalagingordegeneration.217

Youmight be thinking that somebody has been watching toomany sciencefictionmovieslately,butyouwouldbewrong.Transhumansaredeadlyseriousaboutbecomingposthumanbyusingadvanced technology (e.g.,NBIC) that isnow well under development at major universities and research centersthroughout theworld, and there is just enough substance to court a loyal andgrowingfollowingofwould-beposthumans.Sinceallof this issquarelybasedonScientism(discussedinChapter1),itisthusdirectlyrelatedtoTechnocracyand must be explored in some detail. Again, the question is, do technocraticstrategistsintendfortheirnewly-transformedworldtobepopulatedwithhumansorposthumans?

Julian Huxley (1887-1975), brother of the utopian science fiction writerAldousHuxley(BraveNewWorld,1932),wasthefirstpersontousethewordTranshumanisminhis1957bookNewBottlesForNewWine:Itisasifmanhadbeen suddenly appointedmanaging director of the biggest business of all, thebusiness of evolution —appointed without being asked if he wanted it, andwithoutproperwarningandpreparation.Whatismore,hecan’trefusethejob.Whetherhewantstoornot,whetherheisconsciousofwhatheisdoingornot,he is in point of fact determining the future direction of evolution on thisearth. That is his inescapable destiny, and the sooner he realizes it and startsbelievinginit,thebetterforallconcerned.Thehumanspeciescan,ifitwishes,transcenditself—notjustsporadically,anindividualhereinoneway,anindividualthereinanotherway,butinitsentirety, as humanity. We need a name for this new belief. Perhapstranshumanismwillserve:manremainingman,buttranscendinghimself,byrealizingnewpossibilitiesofandforhishumannature.“Ibelieveintranshumanism”:oncethereareenoughpeoplewhocantrulysay that, the human species will be on the threshold of a new kind ofexistence,asdifferentfromoursasoursisfromthatofPekingman.Itwillatlastbeconsciouslyfulfillingitsrealdestiny.218[Emphasisadded]Huxley was a professing humanist, having signed the original Humanist

Manifesto in 1933 and served as the first president of the British HumanistAssociationuponitsfoundingin1963.In1962,Huxleyreceivedthe“Humanistof theYear” award from theAmericanHumanistAssociation.Hewas deeplycommitted to Darwin’s theories of evolution and eugenics as an evolutionarybiologistbyeducationandprofession.Hebecame the firstDirector-Generalofthe United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) in 1946 and was president of the British Eugenics Society from1959-1962. He was also a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund in1961.Inshort,HuxleylivedalifetotallyimmersedinSustainableDevelopmentbeforethetermevenexisted.However,asavisionaryhesawbeyondthevalleyoftransformationtothemountainpeaksafaroff,wheretheultimategoalofmanmightberealized:Takingdirectcontrolofevolutioninordertolaunchmankindtoa“newkindofexistence”,oneachievedby“transcendinghimself”,andthusfinallyfulfillinghis“realdestiny”.CoulditbethatHuxleyhadaglimpseoftheHumanGenomeProject tomap thehumangenome in the1990s?Or thoughtsaboutRayKurzweil’spredictionofSingularityinthe21stcentury?Whetherhedid or did not, Huxley is considered to be an important “founding father” of

moderntranshumanismbyTranshumaniststhemselves.Although there are many Transhumanist organizations around the world all

espousingveryconsistentphilosophicalandreligiousviews,thereisnonemorerepresentative and authoritative thanHumanityPlus, orH+, ledbyMaxMoreand hiswife,NatashaVita-More,who authored theTranshumanManifesto in1983.Max co-founded the original Transhumanist magazineExtropy in 1988and the Extropy Institute in the early 1990s. The first point of theirTranshumanistDeclarationstates,Humanitystandstobeprofoundlyaffectedbyscienceandtechnologyinthefuture.Weenvisionthepossibilityofbroadeninghuman potential by overcoming aging, cognitive shortcomings, involuntarysuffering,andourconfinementtoplanetEarth.219[Emphasisadded]Essentially, the Transhuman envisions that ultimately he will be able to

recreatehimselfasa“superman”withunlimitedintelligenceandinformationathis disposal (on-demandomniscience), to escapehis human form to travel theuniverse in electronic form (multi-presence if not omnipresence), to modifyphysicalcreationtosuithispersonaltaste(omnipotence)andtoescapephysicaldeath(immortality).ThefactthattheseareGod-likequalitiesisnotlostonwould-beposthumans.

On October 1, 2010, a conference titled Transhumanism and Spirituality washosted by the University of Utah in Salt Lake City where Transhumanmovementleadersfromaroundtheworldconvenedtodiscussthe“evolutionarytransition to divinity through technology…”, that is, man becoming God.Attendees represented a mix of Mormonism, Buddhism, Atheism andChristianity.AlthoughHinduismwasn’tofficiallyrepresented, theconceptwasevident.220Transhumanismhasawideappealtomanydifferentreligionsaroundthe world, especially those that espouse a road to becoming gods;transhumanismsimplyoffersawaytoachieveit-throughtechnologydevelopedby leading scientists and engineers in theworld’s top universities. Indeed, thelanguage of divinity, ormen becoming gods, is seen throughout the scientificcommunityaswell.Ifthereisanyreasonwhyyouhaveneverheardaboutthis,it is because scientists and engineers avoid publicity, and themedia does notperceiveastoryanyway.Torestate:WhereasHumanismreliedonametaphysicalfantasytoachieveits

goals, Transhumanism fortifies its metaphysical wish-list with supposedlyobjectivescience.Nevermind thatmuch, ifnotmost,of thatobjectivesciencehasn’tbeen inventedyet.To theTranshumanpsyche, just themerepromiseoffuturescienceisenoughforthemtocountitasafaitaccompli.

Converging Technologies In June 2002, the National Science Foundationpublished a major 482-page report called, Converging Technologies forImprovingHumanPerformance.Itcalledfortheintegrationoffourbranchesofphysicalscienceforthesolepurposeofenhancingthehumancondition.Specifically,theconvergingdisciplinesareNanotechnology,Biotechnology,InformationTechnologyandCognitiveScience,andtheyhavegivenrisetothe acronym NBIC. In common use among its advocates, the word“Convergence”isoftenusedasanoun.Whythesefourparticularareasofstudy?Let’sbrieflyexploreeachone.First,Nanotechnologyhasrecentlydiscoveredhowtomanipulatethebuilding

blocksofmatterattheatomicandmolecularlevel.Ananometerisonebillionthof ameter and is comparable to the size of amarble verses the size ofEarth.Nanotechnologyisalreadyproducinganumberofsub-disciplinesinthefieldsofmedicine (drugs, diagnostics) and engineering (alloys, chemicals), forinstance. The key to Nanotechnology in the Convergence, however, is in theongoingandon-demandmanipulationofmatterthroughexternalmeans,suchasthroughtheuseofcomputertechnology.Second, Biotechnology is concerned with the study of life and living

organisms.Cells are the building blocks of all life, but scientists believe theyhave cracked the code to life by successfullymapping the human genome, orDNA, starting in 1990, and mostly completed in 2003. DNA is the essentialbuilding block of all life forms. Scientists subsequently noted how similar theDNA structure is to the principles and logic found in computer informationtechnology.Third, Computer Information Technology (CIT) is the most well known of

thesefourtechnologies.Personalcomputers,smartphones,smartappliancesandevenautomobileshaveembeddedmicro-chipsthatcontrolprocesses,collectandprocess data, enable communications, and so on.Applied computer science isabsolutelynecessarytodesign,buildandcontrolDNAsequencesandnano-sizedatomicandmolecularmaterial.Increasinglyfastcomputerchipsarenowabletomakesplit-secondcalculationsthatwouldhavebeencompletelyimpossibleeven50 years ago. Thus, this CIT is enabling lightening-speed development andapplicationoftheothertechnologies.Finally,CognitiveSciencedealswiththehumanmind, includingpsychology,

artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, learning sciences, linguistics,anthropology, sociology and education.221 The reader should note that thisintersection of hard science with sociology (the study of human society) is

reminiscentofthesamephenomenoninthe1930swhensociologywascrossedwithscience toproduceTechnocracy.Athis2013Stateof theUnionAddress,President Obama alluded to Convergence when he stated, Every dollar weinvestedtomapthehumangenomereturned$140tooureconomy....Today,ourscientists aremapping thehumanbrain.…Now is the time to reacha levelofresearchanddevelopmentnotseensincetheheightoftheSpaceRace.222Thereafter, the White House quickly published the Fact Sheet: BRAIN

Initiative, which elaborated, The BRAIN Initiative will accelerate thedevelopmentandapplicationofnewtechnologiesthatwillenableresearcherstoproducedynamicpicturesofthebrainthatshowhowindividualbraincellsandcomplexneuralcircuitsinteractatthespeedofthought.Thesetechnologieswillopen newdoors to explore how the brain records, processes, uses, stores, andretrieves vast quantities of information, and shed light on the complex linksbetweenbrainfunctionandbehavior.223[Emphasisadded]TheBRAINInitiativewasimmediatelykickstartedwithaonehundredmillion

dollar Federal grant with the promise of billions more in future years as theprojectunfolds.TheNationalInstitutesofHealthisleadingtheproject,andthehigh-level working group in charge will be co-chaired by Dr. CorneliaBargmann,aprofessorofneuroscienceatRockefellerUniversity inNewYorkCitywhichwasoriginally foundedby JohnD.Rockefeller, Sr. in 1901 as theRockefellerInstituteforMedicalResearch.Since therewasnopublicdemandforaproject tomap thehumanbrain,nor

wouldanycareerpoliticianhaveaclueabout thecomplexitiesoroutcomesofsuchaproject,onemustconcludethatsomeoutsidegroupputObamauptoit.Suchagroupcouldrightlyclaimincredibleinfluencetobeabletogetasittingpresident to announce and fund a scientific project such as this which onlyunderscoresmy earlier claim that the scientists and engineerswho aspire to aposthumanfutureforthemselvesareanincrediblypowerfulgroupandthattheyare dead serious about achieving their goals, especially if it is at taxpayerexpense.With the building blocks of matter and life at their disposal, coupled with

advancedcomputer technologytohelparrange them, technologistsbelieve thattheyareonthefast-tracktocreatingthefinal“quantumleap”wheremantakesdirectcontroloverevolutionandlaunchesmankindintoaposthumanworld.Itisimportant to note that without the university framework, most of which ispublicly funded, Convergence would generally be a moot issue and wouldremain in the fantasyworldofscience fictionwriters. Ifgovernmentprograms

didnotexistandprivate industrywere left todevelop technology forproductsdesigned to improve the human condition, it undoubtedlywould do so, but itwould be based on public demand and benefit rather than on spiritual,metaphysicalandcult-likephilosophiesofscientistsandengineersfoundwithinuniversities.

SingularityTheotherkeyelementofTranshumanhopeisthefuturistnotionofscientificSingularity.LargelytheorizedandpopularizedbyinventorandfuturistRay Kurzweil, the Singularity predicts a point in time (circa 2042) whencomputer intelligence will finally exceed that of humans, resulting in anunpredictable world where machines become autonomous, maintainingthemselves and creating new technologies and new machine designs withouthumanintervention.Discoveryofnewknowledgeturnsverticalonthechart,faroutstrippinghumanabilitytokeepupwithit,muchlessdirectit.SingularityisoftenexplainedinrelationtoMoore’sLaw,namedafterIntelco-

founderGordonE.Moore,whodescribedtheadvancingtrendintechnologyinhis 1965 paper, Cramming more components onto integrated circuits.224Moore’s Law states that the number of transistors on an integrated circuitdoubles approximately every two years. This has generally held true over theinterveningyears, andother elementsof computer sciencehavegenerallykeptpace withMoore’s Law as well, such as complexity in software engineering,speed in computer communications, etc. Using this logic to extrapolatetechnological advances in artificial intelligencehas ledKurzweil andothers tomakesuchboldpredictions.In his 2005 book, The Singularity is Near, Kurzweil also reveals how

biologicalevolutionhasextendedthroughtechnologicalevolutionandattachesadistinct spiritual connotation to themixby stating,TheSingularitydenotes anevent thatwill takeplace in thematerialworld, the inevitablenext step in theevolutionary process that started with biological evolution and has extendedthroughhuman-directedtechnologicalevolution.However,itispreciselyintheworld of matter and energy that we encounter transcendence, a principalconnotationofwhatpeoplerefertoasspirituality.225[Emphasisadded]ItisimportanttopointoutthatKurzweil’svisionofthefutureisanunproven

theory,howeverplausiblehecanmake itsound,and there isnohardevidencethat he could be right.However, his strong and unwavering belief in his owntheoryhasledhimtoseektoresurrecthisbelovedfatherbacktolifethroughacomputer avatar. As to the rest of the currently living, he forecasts, The

Singularitywillallowustotranscendtheselimitationsofourbiologicalbodiesandbrains.Wewillgainpoweroverourfates.Ourmortalitywillbeinourownhands.Wewill be able to live as long aswewant.Wewill fully understandhumanthinkingandwillvastlyextendandexpanditsreach.Bytheendofthiscentury,thenonbiologicalportionofourintelligencewillbetrillionsoftrillionsoftimesmorepowerfulthanunaidedhumanintelligence.226[Emphasisadded]WhenyoutakealittlehardscienceproducedbytheConvergenceandaddtoit

a plausible but unproven theory of the Singularity, you have the modernequivalent of Darwin’s primordial soup that produced the first edition ofhumanity.WhereasDarwin’stheoryofevolutionwasbasedonrandomchance,technological evolution will explicitly take control of the development ofposthumanman,leadinghimtoeventuallybecome“godsoftheuniverse”withincrediblegod-likepowers.Thatisastrongstatement,butitisbackedupbydirecttestimony.Forinstance,

Dr. Richard Seed, a leading Transhuman, cloning researcher and nuclearphysicist, was interviewed for a documentary on Transhumanism and ratherangrilystated,WearegoingtobecomeGods.Period.Ifyoudon’tlikeit,getoff.Youdon’thavetocontribute,youdon’thavetoparticipate.Butifyou’regoingto interfere withME becoming God, then we’ll have big trouble; we’ll havewarfare. The onlyway to preventme is to killme.And you killme, I’ll killyou.227

Since this book is about Technocracy and not Transhumanism, this briefdiscussion will have to suffice. The reader can ponder the question of howPosthumans and Technocracy will get along. But, since we see the multiplethreads of Evolution, Humanism and Scientism through both, it is notunreasonabletosuggestthatonewasmadefortheotherandviceversa.Anotherreason to suggest this as a necessity is that today’s humans may endorseTechnocracy for a time, but in the end, as they see the nature of scientificdictatorship,theywillrejectitandattempttothrowitoffsociety’sback.Inotherwords, the utopian promises ofmodern Technocracymay be appealing to themasses,butnotthatappealing.AddingtheTranshumancarrotofbecominggodsin the process will simply seal the deal by thoroughly deceiving man intothinkingthat thepromisesofUtopiaactuallyexistandthat theymustpatientlyenduretheinconveniencesofTechnocracyinordertorealizethem.

215AttributedtoNatashaVita-More,216AttributedtoMaxMore217TranshumanistFAQ,(http://www.extropy.org).

218JulianHuxley,NewBottlesforNewWine,(PetersFraser&Dunlop,1957),p.17.219TranshumanistDeclaration,(http://humanityplus.org/philosophy/transhumanist-declaration/).220EyewitnesstestimonyfromChristianresearcherandapologist,CarlTeichribwhowasallowedtoattendtheconferenceasanobserver.(seewww.ForcingChange.com)221PaulThagard,EdwardN.Zalta(ed.),“CognitiveScience”,TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy(Fall2008Edition).222BarackObama,“StateoftheUnionAddress”,(2013)(http://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2013).223FactSheet:BRAINInitiative,April2,2013,(http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/04/02/fact-sheet-brain-initiative).224GordonE.More,“Crammingmorecomponentsontointegratedcircuits”,ElectronicsMagazine,(1965),pp.4.225RayKurzweil,TheSingularityisNear:WhenHumansTranscendBiology,(VikingPress,2005),p.387.226Ibid.,p.9.227Dr.RichardSeed,TechnocalypsPartII-PreparingfortheSingularity,2006.

W

CHAPTER11

TAKINGACTION

hen I use military terms such as enemies, defeat, battles and war,please understand that these are only analogies used to describe and

explain our current condition. This chapter in no way proposes any kind ofviolence or illegal behavior toward any person, especially toward fellowAmericancitizens.Forthosecriticswhowillundoubtedlythinkit legitimatetoliftaquoteoutofcontext,Iwarnyouinadvancethatthisparagraphstatesmyclear intention:Noguns.Noknives.Noblunt instruments.Nobodilyharmofanykind.Thismay seemharsh to some, butAmericans need to face the hard facts of

reality.Wefindourselvesinourcurrentsituationbecauseourenemieshavehada clearly superior strategy from the startwhilewe - the people - have had nocoherent strategy at all.We have lost battle after battle and are almost to thepoint of losing the war altogether. We can work this dilemma backward bycallingonGeneralSunTzu(circa500BC),thenotedChinesemilitarystrategistandphilosopher.TzuwroteTheArtofWar,asimplebookthathasbeenusedbymilitary strategists ever since, including those from theUnitedStates.ChapterThreestates,inpart,Ifyouknowtheenemyandknowyourself,youneednot feartheresultofahundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victorygained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy noryourself,youwillsuccumbineverybattle.228

Bythisanalysis, thefact thatwehave“succumbedineverybattle”(andyes,thereareafewexceptions) isbecausewedon’tknowtheenemyandwedon’tknow ourselves. So, who is the enemy? According to Tzu’s philosophy, ourenemieshavesucceededinkeepingalleyesoffofthembyencouraginguselessinfighting among our own citizens. Conservatives see liberals as the enemy.Liberalsseeconservativesastheenemy.Libertariansseebiggovernmentastheenemy.However,ifyouhavepickedupevenonethingfromreadingthisbook,it should be that Technocracy has completely transcended political parties orphilosophies.TrilateralCommissionmembershaveusedandmanipulatedbothsides of the political spectrum to getwhat theywantwhile avoidingdetectionandhence,anyeffectiveresistance.UpontheelectionofJimmyCarterin1976,

it can be accurately said that Trilateral Commission Technocrats literallyhijacked the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, and they havedominated every administration since then, up to and including that ofBarackHusseinObama.Aswehaveprogresseddown this path,Americahas becomemore andmoredivided, contentious andmanywould even say, dysfunctional.Andwhy not?When you know you are being attacked and things are fallingapart,butyoudonotknowwhotheenemyis,youstrikeoutatanyconvenienttarget. This is the exact opposite of howAmericans actedwhen PearlHarborwasattackedatthestartofourinvolvementinWorldWarIIbecauseeverybodyknewwhoourenemieswereandthusfocusedalloftheirattentionondestroyingthem.Thinkwhatwouldhappen today ifAmericans suddenly recognizedwhotheirtrueenemieswere?Thenextquestionis,“Whoarewe?”Firstoff,mostcitizensofournationare

thoroughlydeceivedabout thenatureofourproblemsandhowtheyhavebeenperpetrated.Just thesuggestionof thiswillundoubtedlytriggernarrow-mindedresponseslike“IfonlypeopleknewaboutFEMAcamps”or“Wecan’tchangeourcountryunlesswegetridoftheFederalReserve”or“Thepresidentmustbeimpeached.”Overtheyears,Ihaveheardmoreargumentsthancanpossiblyberemembered,andtheyhaveallmissedthemark.Foralltheeffortputintothesemisguided pursuits, how much better off are we for it today? Our presentcondition speaks for itself: The nation is circling the drain because we havemissedthemark.Itiswewhohavebeendeceivedbyacraftyenemywhoknewexactlywhattheyweredoing.Thismuststop.Onceweaccept thefact that theproblemswefaceareduetospecificpeople

pushingTechnocracyonus,wewillstarttodestroythisdelusion.Whoarethesepeople?Again,thegloballeadersaremembersoftheTrilateralCommissionandtheir elitist cronies; the foot soldiers are the myriads of unelected andunaccountable technocrats at all levels of government and the corporateworldwhoarespecificallyuninterestedinpoliticsunlessitfurtherstheircause.ThesecondcomplaintaboutwhoweareisafailuretorecognizethatCongress

hasbeenneuteredasfarascontrollingTechnocracyandTrilateralhegemonyisconcerned.When I say “neutered”, Imean impotent and ineffective.Wehavespent the last 40 years fighting to send good Representatives and Senators toWashington to steer our nationout of harm’sway.Have they succeeded?No.However,likeaddictedgamblerswhodonotknowwhentostopputtingcoinsinthemachine,theydouble-downhopingtogettheirlostmoneyback.Americansneed to face the fact that the national political scene is largely a waste of

valuabletimeandmoneyandgetbeyondit.Dismalas theabovemayseem,Americansneed to justcalmdown,embrace

tested and tried strategies to set things right, and then execute those strategiesthatwillwin battle after battle. They don’t have to be “big” battles, either. Iftherewereathousandwinsonevenasmallscale,itwouldhaveahugeimpactonournationasawhole.What do I mean by a small scale? Let’s say that your town is voting on a

General Plan that is inspired, if not written, by the Agenda 21/SustainableDevelopmentcrowd.YoutakeontheformidabletaskofrallyingthecitizensofthecommunitytovotetheGeneralPlandownandatthesametime,calloutthecity council members who supported it, the city manager who signed theconsulting contracts, and all the planners who “wrote it up”. Running yourGeneralPlanoutoftownwillnotmakenationalnews,butifenoughtownsdidthesamethingacrossthecountry,theywouldcollectivelysendahugemessageupthechainoftechnocratcommandthattheyarebeingexposedandareatriskofbeingthrownoutoftheirpositionsaswell.The citizens of our country are in no position to stop the National Security

Agencyfromspyingonthem,asunconstitutionalorillegalasthatmaybe.WeareinnopositiontoroutthecorruptionoutoftheInternalRevenueServiceandtostop it frombeingusedasapoliticalweaponagainstcitizens.Weare innoposition to stop the Executive Branch from obstinately refusing to enforceexisting immigration laws and close the border to illegal immigrants. Whilethese truly are all critical issues, the real problem is that we simply have nopowertoovercomethematthistime.WeneedtolistenalittlehardertoSunTzutogetsome“streetsmarts”about

developingstrategiesthatleadtowins:Tofightandconquerinallyourbattlesisnotsupremeexcellence;supremeexcellenceconsistsinbreakingtheenemy’sresistancewithoutfighting.

Thusthehighestformofgeneralshipistobalktheenemy’splans;thenextbestistopreventthejunctionoftheenemy’sforces;thenextinorderistoattacktheenemy’sarmyinthefield;andtheworstpolicyofallistobesiegewalledcities.The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly beavoided.229[Emphasisadded]

Thisissuchapackageofstrategicwisdom.First,wearenotinastreetbrawl

wherewejustrunintoanyfightandstartthrowingpunches.Thebestthingistobreaktheenemy’swillandresistancewithoutafightatall!Yes,thatispossible.Inorderofimportance,thebestoutcomeistoscuttletheenemy’splansoutrightbefore a battle is even engaged; theworst scenario is laying siege to awalledcity, that is, to an enemy who is already heavily entrenched and fortified byvarious layers of insulation and bureaucracy. The second-best outcome is toblock the meet-up of various enemy forces coming to a battle from differentdirections, as is the casewhenenvironmentalgroupsconspirewithNGOsandlocalplanningcommitteestoforcesomepolicydownourthroats.Onanational level,most top technocratsaredefinitelyhardenedbypolitical

battleswhere theyhave learned to repel or dodge resistance.On a local level,most Technocrats have never experienced any resistance from anyone, andhence, they are weak. Experience shows that they are utterly dismayed whensomeonesuggeststheirideasarestupid,shortsighted,unconstitutional,illegalorwhatever.Afterall,theyhavebeeneducatedbyagovernmentschoolsystemthatbrainwashed them into thinking that their beliefs are shared by everyone insociety.When confronted, especially in a public forum, they are often caughtliketheproverbialdeerintheheadlights,wide-eyedandclueless.This isnot tosaythat local technocratsarenecessarilyeasytodislodgefrom

yourcommunity.Afterall, theyarealreadythere,andtheyaredeeplyinvestedintheworkthattheyaredoing.Theywillnotjustwalkawayfromitallbecauseyou say so. On the other hand, they are virtually defenseless when theirargumentsandphilosophiesareconfrontedwithhardfactsand/orlegalaction.Thenextmostimportantelementistoengagetheenemywhereyoufindhim

anddonotengagethosewhomyoudonotknoworcannotfind.Thismightseemobvious, but it is often missed by most well-intentioned activists. The mostoverused andmeaninglesswords in society are “them” and “they”.When theenemyisn’tidentified,peoplesimplyusetheimpersonalsubstitution:“Wemustfight them.” “They cannot get away with this.” This has to stop: You simplycannot fight an unknown or unidentified enemy. To gain intelligence on theenemy, you must expend effort doing legwork and research. Attend publicmeetings, talk to local officials, research voting records, read planningdocuments, request access to city and county contracts, etc. In mostcommunities,itwillnottakelongtodeterminethewho,what,when,where,whyand how of your local situation. The point is, if you haven’t done yourhomeworktogetthiskindofinformation,youwillbewastingyourtimeshadowboxing with the hypothetical “them”, always swinging and never landing a

punch.HowcanyouidentifyalocallyorientedTechnocrat?Ifyoucanmatchuptwo

orthreecharacteristicsfromthislist,youmayhavediscoveredatechnocrat:

Promotes pseudo-scientific ideas such as global warming/climatechangeorSustainableDevelopmentCreates or enforces regulations or policies that are not subject tolegislative,judicialorpublicapprovalPromotesorworkswithNGOs,environmentalgroupsoranyagencyoftheUnitedNationsPromoteseconomicdevelopmentorpoliciesbasedonSmartGrowth,urbanrenewalorPublic-PrivatePartnershipsAny elected or appointed official who is active in a RegionalGovernanceprogramsuchasaCouncilsofGovernmentsorganizationUnwilling to listen or shuts down any opposing positions ordiscussion

Thisisnotmeanttobeexhaustivenortosendyouonawitchhunt.Ifyouhavereadandunderstoodtherestofthisbook,youshouldbeabletounderstandthetechnocratmindset. You can be sure thatmost technocrats will not recognizethemselvesassuch,andmanymaynotevenknowwhatthewordmeans.Ontheotherhand,don’tletinnocencedeceiveyou.Nicepeoplecanbemisguidedjustas easily as anyone else. Accordingly, some people will easily recant theirpositions when exposed to the truth via gentle explanation or exhortation.Always lookforpeoplewhoarewilling toseriously listen toyouandwhoarewillingtochangeifthemotivationtodosoiscorrect.Technocratswill resistyourefforts inoneof twoways:overtlyorpassively.

Byovert resistance, Imean theywillactivelygiveyouanargumentas towhyyouarewrongand they are right.Theymight appear as ideologues insteadofpublic servants, and they are always easy to identify. By passive resistance, Imeanthattheywillappeartoagreewithyoujusttogetyououtoftheirfaceandwill thenproceed todowhat theyhadalreadydecided todo in the firstplace.Thelatterismoredifficulttodealwiththantheformerbecauseprecioustimeiswasted while you watch what they do in spite of what they have said.Furthermore, thepassive resister ismoredifficult topindownbecausehewillpullthesametrickonyou(andothers)overandoveragain,agreeingwithyouinwordbutdoingjusttheoppositeinaction.

Since elected and unelected officials come from your own community, it isimportanttoeducateeveryoneaboutTechnocracyandeverythingthatitimplies.Itisobviouslyeasiertogroomapublicservantbeforeheorsheiselevatedtoapositionwherepoliciesarecreatedandenforced.Themostimportantreasonforyou towork on all local elections - city council, planning committees, schoolboards,firedistrictboards,etc.- is togetpeopleintothesystemwhocanthenrise to higher levels as timegoeson. In themeantime, insiders are in a betterpositiontoinfluencetheirpeersthanyouare,andifnot,theycanatleasttellyouwhere the logjams exist so that you can assist them in putting pressure in therightplaces.

HowtoGetaTechnocratFiredFirstandforemost, letmepointout thatevery localactivistgroupmusthave

good legal council. This is not optional. If you don’t have access to a like-mindedlawyer,recruitonetoyourcause.Thelawisnotalwaysclearandlogicallikeyoumightthinkitshouldbe.Further,peopleknowinglyorunknowinglyactoutsideofthelawandneedtobecorrectedwithwhatthelawactuallysays.Anelectedofficialwhoactsinawaycontrarytothebestinterestsofthosewho

are represented can certainly be threatened by political backlash and by beingvotedoutofoffice.Ifthenextelectionisfaroff,youmusttakeotheractionsifyou want to stop his or her behavior from doing more damage to yourcommunity. Isolation is one strategy: Persuade those immediately around theofficial to change their opinions and actions, requiring the official to workagainsthisorherownpeers.Enlistingofficiallegalcouncilisanotherstrategy:Makeyourowncasewithyourlegalrepresentativeandthentakeittothecityorcounty attorney for action. In all cases, always seek to work with your localnewspapers,radioandTVstationstopublicizeyourcase.Theoddsmaybethattheywillnotgiveyouthetimeofday,butyousetupacriticalaccountabilitytobeusedlaterbygivingthemthefactstoreporttoday.Let’sassumeforaminutethatyouhaveworkedtheabovestrategy,hopingto

get some particular result. Even though you are convinced, after talking withyourownlegalcouncil,thatlawsarebeingorhavebeenviolated,youhavehitthe proverbial brickwall.The very next concept youneed to become familiarwithismisprision.Misprision is a legal term thatgenerallymeans failureof apublicofficial to

notifycertainotherofficialswhenacriminallawhasbeenbroken.Theofficialwhoshoulddothisreportingisnotapartytothecrimebuthadclearknowledge

that itwas being or had been committed and took steps to conceal the crime.Bothknowledgeandconcealmentarenecessarytoprovemisprision.Whenyouhave delivered clear proof of a felony crime to an duly elected or appointedofficial,and theymakeanconsciousdecision to ignore it, then theyare takingaction to conceal it.There are two types ofmisprisions that are relevant here:Misprision of Treason and Misprision of Felony. According to one lawdictionary,MisprisionofFelonyoccurswhenWhoever,havingknowledgeoftheactualcommissionofafelonycognizablebyacourtoftheU.S.,concealsanddoesnotassoonaspossiblemakeknownthesametosomejudgeorotherperson incivilormilitaryauthorityunderthe U.S. 18 USC Misprision of felony, is the like concealment of felony,withoutgivinganydegreeofmaintenancetothefelonforifanyaidbegivenhim,thepartybecomesanaccessoryafterthefact.230

MisprisionofTreasonisdefinedastheconcealmentoftreason,bybeingmerelypassiveforifanyassistancebegiven, to the traitor, it makes the party a principal, as there are noaccessoriesintreason.231

Understanding misprision requires very specific charges as to the felony ortreasonbeingcommitted.Has theConstitution, federal, stateor local lawbeenviolated? Have you properly informed your local officials of these specificviolations?Have they refused to act by reporting to appropriate authorities? Iftheansweris“Yes”,thenyoucandeliveranappropriateMisprisionofFelonyorMisprisionofTreasontoeachofficial,puttingthemonofficialnoticeforfutureactionagainst them.InthecaseofMisprisionofTreason, thepotentialpenaltywouldgetanyone’sattention:“Suchpersonorpersons,onconviction,shallbeadjudgedguiltyofmisprisionoftreason,andshallbeimprisonednotexceedingsevenyears,andfinednotexceedingonethousanddollars.”232

To be clear, there have been no recent convictions anywhere in theU.S. onMisprisionofTreasonorMisprisionofFelony,butthelawsarenonethelessstillvalidandtheoreticallyenforceable.Furthermore,thereisnostatuteoflimitationformisprisioncharges,soanoticedeliveredtodaymayhavelegalconsequencesfortherecipientyearsdowntheroad.Someonemightbethinking,“Itriedtoexplainthefactstomyofficial,butthey

would not listen.” In this case, deliver the facts to the public record in yourcommunity.Thiscouldmeandeliveringaclearlywrittenexplanationtothecityor county recorder’s office, or put into the official logs of your local citycouncil’s meeting. In addition, you could publish your explanation in a local

newspaper,muchlikepublicnoticesofbankruptcies,deaths,legalactions,etc.Let’s not forget the unelected officials who are probably more directly

responsibleforcraftingunconstitutionalorillegalpoliciesandregulations.Findoutwhotheyare,educatethemasbestasyoucan,andthenservethemwiththesamenoticeofmisprision.While theymaywholeheartedlydisagreewithyourpositions,themerefactthatyouhave“calledthemout”willgivethempausefortheir future behavior. As more successes are recorded throughout the nation,thosewhohavebeenservedwithMisprisionnoticeswillindeedbegintosweat,eventothepointofchangingtheirmind,actionsandallegiances.

SuccessStoriesAreBuildingCommon Core State Standards were developed with private money

(foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) and owned by aprivate organization (The National Governor’s Association). Common Coreprepares students for an Agenda 21-and Sustainable Development-dominatedfuture.Thestandardshavebeenwidelyadoptedinmoststates,thankstoeffortsby the National Governor’s Association and certain NGOs. However, theresistance has been growing. Much to their own credit though, Indiana,Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina and Oklahoma have already passedlegislation to ban Common Core curriculum from their state. Ohiomay soonbecome the fifth, and its legislation also intends to block any school fromadoptingothereducationstandardsthathavebeencreatedbyanyentityoutsideofthestate.InLouisiana,thegovernorexecutedanexecutiveorderrequiringthestate to develop its own education standards. There are anti-Common Coreactivistsinall50stateswhoareintentonreversingthetideintheirlocalschoolsystems.It isnosmallfeat togetanentirestatehouseandsenatetocraftsuchlegislation, and it is certainly a clear warning to those who think only a few“narrow-minded”andotherwiseignorantcitizensopposeCommonCore.TheinternationalsponsorofAgenda21,LocalGovernmentsforSustainability

or ICLEI, formerlyhadover600citiesasdues-payingmembers thatagreed toadoptitspolicies.ResistanceagainstICLEIbecamesofiercethatitremoveditsmembershiplistfromitswebsite.FromJanuary1,2011throughJune30,2012-just 18 short months - 138 cities were forced by their own citizens to severrelationswithICLEIaltogether.Manymorehavefollowedsincethen.Lawsuits againstAgenda21are springingup. In theSanFranciscoarea two

prominent local organizations, FreedomAdvocates and the Post SustainabilityInstitute, launched a lawsuit against an Agenda 21-inspired Plan Bay Areacreated and imposed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).ABAG is amember of theCaliforniaAssociation ofCouncils ofGovernment(CALCOG) and part of the larger unconstitutional network of regionalgovernmentorganizations.TheAmendedComplaintBriefofthelawsuitstates,inpart,The[PostSustainability] Institutehasabeneficial interest inensuring thatpublic funds are not unlawfully wasted on statutes, plans, agreements, orprograms that are in violation of rights held under the United States orCaliforniaConstitutions.TheInstitutehasalsobroughtthisactiononbehalf

ofthepublicinterest;tovindicatethepublic’sinterestinland-useplanningthat is coherent and consistent with the California and United StatesConstitutions.233

Examples such as these should be an encouragement that some battles arebeingfoughtandwon. Inallcasesofwins throughout thenation,youwillseeveryprofessional and thoroughactivism thatproduced results.Someonemightargue that thesewinswere only incidental and that they didn’t see thewholepicturecorrectly.Perhaps so.But, if incidentalbattles canbewonbypartiallyknowing themselves and/or the enemy, thinkwhat is possible froma cadre ofAmericanswhoknowbothindepth!Indeed,allhopeisnotlost,butitisquicklyfading.Americanshavehadample

opportunityoverthelast40yearstostoptheglobaltransformationofAmericaandhave failed todo so.The twocompelling reasons for this are that1) theydidn’t knowor understand their enemies and 2) they didn’t know themselves.Hopefully,thischapterwillcompletelyremovebothmisconceptions.

228SunTzu,TheArtofWar,circa500BC.229Tzu,S.,TheArtofWar,DoverPublications,2002.230Misprision,The‘LectricLawLibraryLexicon.231Ibid.232TheCrimesActof1790(ortheFederalCriminalCodeof1790),formallytitledAnActforthePunishmentofCertainCrimesAgainsttheUnitedStates.233AmendedComplaintBrief,SuperiorCourtoftheStateofCalifornia,AlamedaCounty,Case#RG13699215,March6,2014.

MCHAPTER12

CONCLUSIONYHOPEISTHATTHISBOOKHASHELPEDYOUTOCONNECTTHEDOTSIN

AWORLDTHATISACCELERATINGOUTOFCONTROL.INFACT,THEPROBLEMSWEFACEASASOCIETYARENOTATALLUNRELATEDBUTRATHERARE

ORCHESTRATEDBYAVERYSMALLGLOBALELITEWHOWANTSTOTRANSFORMOURSOCIETYANDTHE

WORLDINTOAUTOPIANSYSTEMCALLEDTECHNOCRACY.FURTHER,EVERYPILLAROF

SOCIETYISBEINGRADICALLYTRANSFORMEDATTHESAMETIME,EACHINSYNCHRONYWITHTHEOTHER.

THERELIGIOUSNOTIONSOFHUMANISMANDSCIENTISMRUNTHROUGHOUT,PUSHINGTHEWORLD

TOBECOMETHEFIRSTTRULYGLOBALANDGODLESSRELIGIONINHISTORY.

ThefirstnationinhistorythatattemptedafullimplementationofTechnocracywasNaziGermanyduringthereignofAdolfHitler,andthatendedverypoorlywiththemassgenocideofmillionsofpeople.ThetechnocratswhoranHitler’swarmachineweregladtohavea“host”where theycouldapply theiramazingtechnologyandknow-how,butwhoHitlerwasorwhathedidwasofnoconcernto them.We learned from this that technocrats can thrive under any politicalsystem but that their presence will transform that system if they are leftunchecked.ThesecondimplementationofTechnocracywasinChinawhichwasindeeda

Communistnationuntilmembersof theTrilateralCommissiongotaholdof it.Remember that it wasHenry Kissinger under Richard Nixon andZbigniewBrzezinski under Jimmy Carter who normalized relations with CommunistChina and threw open the doors for Western multinational corporations topursue massive economic development opportunities.233 And so they did.WhethertheChineseknewitornotatthetime,theywerecompletelyabsorbedinto the Trilateral vision of a “New International Economic Order”, orTechnocracy. Of the corporations who originally set up business there in theearlydays,almostallhadatleastonememberoftheTrilateralCommissionontheirboardofdirectors,andsomehadseveral.By2001,justtwentyyearslater,TimeMagazine(itselftightlyconnectedtothe

TrilateralCommission)documentedthetransformationinabylinetitled“MadeinChina: TheRevenge of theNerds”. Itwas amisleading title, but the storyitself was spot on: The nerds are running the show in today’s China. In thetwenty years since Deng Xiaoping’s [1978-79] reforms kicked in, thecomposition of the Chinese leadership has shifted markedly in favor oftechnocrats. ...It’s no exaggeration to describe the current regime as atechnocracy.After the Maoist madness abated and Deng Xiaoping inaugurated theopening and reforms that began in late 1978, scientific and technicalintellectuals were among the first to be rehabilitated. Realizing that theywere the key to the Four Modernizations embraced by the reformers,concertedeffortsweremadetobringthe“experts”backintothefold.During the 1980s, technocracy as a concept was much talked about,especially in the context of so-called “Neo-Authoritarianism” -- theprinciple at the heart of the “Asian Developmental Model” that SouthKorea, Singapore, and Taiwan had pursued with apparent success. Thebasic beliefs and assumptions of the technocrats were laid out quiteplainly:Socialandeconomicproblemswereakintoengineeringproblemsandcouldbeunderstood,addressed,andeventuallysolvedassuch.TheopenhostilitytoreligionthatBeijingexhibitsattimes--mostnotablyinits obsessive drive to stamp out the “evil cult” of FalunGong -- has pre-Marxistroots.Scientismunderlies thepost-Mao technocracy,and it is theorthodoxyagainstwhichheresiesaremeasured.234[Emphasisadded]Ifyouhaveabsorbedwhatyouhavealreadyreadinthisbook,youwillnever

seeChinainthesamelightagain.Mostobservers,however,still lookatChinaasaCommunistDictatorship,butonlybecause it continues tobeauthoritarian

and repressive. Time Magazine simply tells us that this is just Neo-Authoritarianism,Technocracy-style.Itlooksthesameonthesurfaceascitizenscontinuetobeoppressed,butthenatureofthemanipulationgoesmuchdeeperthaniteverdidbefore.Then there is the Technocracy operating in the European Union. The co-

founder of the Trilateral Commission, David Rockefeller, proudly stated in1998, Back in the early Seventies, the hope for amore united EUROPEwasalreadyfull-blown- thanksinmanywaystotheindividualenergiespreviouslyspentbysomanyoftheTrilateralCommission’searliestmembers.235

This early influence apparently never abated because it was TrilateralCommissionerValleryd’EstaingwhoauthoredtheEU’sConstitutionin2002-2003whenhewasPresidentoftheConventionontheFutureofEurope.Thenin2011,whenEuropewashitbyeconomicchaosandGreeceandItalywereontheverge of total collapse, theEuropeanCommission summarily fired the electedprimeminstersofbothnationsandappointedtheirreplacements:MarioMontiwas installed as prime minister in Italy andLukas Papademos assumed thesame title inGreece. To reiterate - theywereappointed by the unelected andunaccountable European Union. Both were members of the TrilateralCommissionandintheEuropeanpress,mostimportantly,theywerebothwidelyhailedas“Technocrats”.SlateMagazineimmediatelypublishedaheadlinestorytitled“What’saTechnocrat?”andproceeded toanswer itsownquestion:Bothmenhavebeendescribedas“technocrats”inmajornewspapers.What,exactly,isatechnocrat?…Anexpert,notapolitician.Technocratsmakedecisionsbasedonspecializedinformationratherthanpublicopinion…Thewordtechnocratcanalsorefertoanadvocateofaformofgovernmentinwhichexpertspreside.…intheUnitedStates,technocracywasmostpopularintheearlyyearsoftheGreatDepression. Inspired in part by the ideas of economist Thorstein Veblen, themovement was led by engineer Howard Scott, who proposed radical utopianideas and solutions to the economic disaster in scientific language. Hismovement,foundedin1932,drewnationalinterest.236

Slate nailed it andput in theproper contextofhistoricTechnocracy.So,weneed to just get past the fluff and call the European Union what it is: ATechnocracy!Inthiscase,theyinstalledtwotechnocratdictatorsoverformerlyprouddemocraticstates.ItisironicthatWesterncivilizationwasfoundeduponprinciplesdeveloped in these twocountries, andyet theywere the first two tosuccumbtooutrightdictatorshipatthehandsofneo-authoritariantechnocrats.HowcloseisAmericatocapitulatingtoTechnocracy?Callsforitarealready

appearingifyouknowwhattolookfor.Forinstance,U.S.News&WorldReportmagazinewaiteduntilMarch2012todeclarethat“AmericaNeedsLeadersLikeGreece’sPapademosorItaly’sMonti.”Theauthorelaborated,WhatPapademosofferedGreece andwhatMonti offered Italywas a chance for all parties, left,right,andcenter,tocometogetherundertechnocraticandnonpoliticalleadershipto solveeconomicproblems that threatened to spinoutof control anddamagedemocracyitself.237

Whattheauthorfailstounderstandisthatadictatorshipismutuallyexclusiveto a democracy. As to “nonpolitical leadership”, we already see Technocracyoperating within virtually every Federal agency and within every localcommunity that is implementing Sustainable Development and Agenda 21policies. It’s just that nobody recognizes it forwhat it is, even though it is allaroundus.Worse,thenooseistighteningrapidly.GiventhestateofaffairsinChinaandtheEuropeanUnion,shouldanyonebe

surprisedthatAmericawouldnotbenextonthelist?ConvertingthosenationstoTechnocracy took quite a bit of time, a lot of deception and persuasion to goalong.Itwouldrequireadifferentstrategyandadifferenttacticalplan.RichardGardner, a professor at Columbia University and an original member of theTrilateralCommission,spelledthisoutina1974paperpublishedintheCouncilonForeignRelationspublicationForeignAffairs:Inshort,the“houseofworldorder”wouldhavetobebuiltfromthebottomupratherthanfromthetopdown.Itwill look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion,’ to useWilliam James’famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty,eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish muchmore than the old-fashionedfrontalassault.238

Doestoday’sworldseemlikea“booming,buzzingconfusion”toyou?Hasournation been picked apart piece by piece, effectively destroying nationalsovereigntyintheprocess?Ofcourse,theanswerisemphaticallyYes!TheonlyreasonithastakenlongertobringtheU.S.toitskneesisbecausethetechnocratsfirstneededtogetthroughthestickyproblemsof“RuleofLaw”andourconceptof “unalienable rights” that so stronglydefineourRepublic.There is noothernation in the world based squarely on these two principles. Furthermore, thetechnocrats needed to overturn America’s Judeo-Christian ethical and moralbase that said No! to relative truth, Evolution, Humanism and Scientism.Technocratsfacednosuchdifficultiesonothercontinents.Chinawasalreadyagodlessdictatorship,andsoonlyasinglepersonneededtobeconvincedtogoalong. InEurope, the Judeo-Christianethic and systemofmoral absoluteshad

alreadydiedseveraldecadesagomakingthetechnocratconquestaneasysport.Other countries with neither have fallen prey with zero resistance, like sheepbeing led to the slaughter. Indeed, America has posed a special obstacle forTechnocracyin thepast.TheAmericanpeoplerejected it in the1930sevenasNaziGermany eagerly embraced it at the same time.The “frontal attack” thatdidnotworkwas replacedwith an“end runaroundnational sovereignty” thathasbeenveryeffectivewithoutcausinganyalarmalongtheway-untilperhapsnow.Criticsarecertaintoarguethepointthatthesenationsarenottransforminginto

Technocracies.Icanonlyask,“Towhatdegreeoftransformationwouldittakefor you to change yourmind?” Today’s issue is not necessarily thatwe have“arrived”butratherthatweare“ontheway”andmayarrivesoonerthananyonecanimagine.Letmeexplain.When studying the progression of Nazi Germany leading up to Hitler’s

assumptionofcompletepower,Ihaveoftentheorizedthattherewasverylikelyaspecificpoint in timewhenhe realized thathehadall thepolitical,military,organizationalandeconomicpowernecessarytodeclarehimselfdictator.Hitlerhad declared his intentions in his 1925 book,MeinKampf,whichwasmostlyignoredatthetimebecauseHitlerwasviewedasatrouble-makingrabble-rouserwho was serving time in jail for what he claimed were political crimes. But,Hitler had a dream and a strategy to get there, and then he embarked onimplementingthatstrategy.In1933,afterheclawedandconnivedhiswayintopower, he pulled the plug and declared himself dictator; there was nothinganyonecoulddoaboutit.Toopposehimmeantcertaindeathorimprisonment.Hisworkandstrategy,likemovingthepiecesonachessboard,hadresultedinadoomsdaycheckmate.Mypointisthatitdidn’thappenbyaccidentoraevenbyaseriesofrandomeventswhereonedayhejustwokeupandthought,“IthinkIwill announcemy dictatorship after lunch today.”Rather,Hitlerwas certainlygatheringpiecesofhisempireallalong,analyzingandplottinghisvictorywithexcruciating detail. As the necessary assets were lined up in a row under hiscontrol,Hitlerknewexactlywhat itwould take toget to the top,andheknewthathewouldknowwhenhehadarrived.Well,thatdayarrived,andhistorywaschangedforever.Basedonthisthinking,iftoday’stechnocratsaremeticulouslyworkingtoward

a scientific dictatorship and applying a specific strategy to get there,wouldn’tyouthinkthattheyhaveaspecificlistofcriteriathatmustbemetbefore“gameover”canbecalled?Wouldn’tyouthinkthat theyarecomparingsuchalist to

theactualprogresstheyaremakingintheworld?Wouldn’tyouthinkthattheyaremonitoringtheirprogressandwillrecognizewhenthelisthasbeenfulfilled?Ifyoucanseemypointhere,thenthereareonlytwoquestionsleft:Whenthatdaycomes,willtheTechnocratshavethegutstoshuttheoldworldorderdownandsimplydeclarethe“system”asdictator?Ifso,howlongwillittakethemtoact?There have been science-fiction books written about Technocracy, the most

famous of which is Brave New World (1932) by Aldous Huxley. Huxleypointedly concluded that Technocracy produces scientific dictatorship, notcontrolledbyasingleperson,butbyasystembasedonScientificMethodanddesignedtomanipulateandmicro-manageeveryhumanbeingineverydetailofhis life.The system itselfbecameagod thatwasworshipped,andquestioninganydecisionoroutcomewastantamounttoblasphemy.GeorgeOrwellfinishedNineteen Eighty Four in 1949 and popularized the word Orwellian in theprocess.BothbookswerelookingintothefaceofTechnocracy.Orwell’stheme,technocraticcontrol,isnotunlikewhatwefacetoday:Inaway,theworld-viewof the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable ofunderstanding it.Theycouldbemade toaccept themost flagrantviolationsofreality,becausetheyneverfullygraspedtheenormityofwhatwasdemandedofthem, andwere not sufficiently interested in public events to noticewhatwashappening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simplyswallowedeverything, andwhat they swalloweddid themnoharm,because itleftno residuebehind, justasagrainofcornwillpassundigested through thebodyofabird.239

Somedon’t have the ability or capacity tounderstand, andwebear themnoharm.Somerefusetounderstand.Somethinktheyunderstandanddon’tcareiftheyareignorant.Onlyafewwilladmitthattheydon’tunderstandandseektodosomethingabout it.Thisbookwaswritten foryou,and I encourageyou toclimb up to a higher peak to see the big picture instead of the various smallfragments.The futurebelongs tous,andwealonemust take responsibility forwhatwepassontoourchildrenandgrandchildren.IfwechoosetoignoreanddonothingaboutTechnocracyanditsperpetrators,itismostcertainthatitwillsweepovertheentireworldlikeagianttsunami,pressingallofmankindintoascientific dictatorship that is devoid of any human capacity for things likecompassion,mercy,justice,freedomandliberty.Americans rejected Technocracy in the 1930s, and if we choose to, we can

reject it today aswell.Philosopher and statesmanEdmundBurke (1729-1797)

warned and reproved us from the past that “The people never give up theirlibertiesbutundersomedelusion.”240Thisbookhasstrippedawaysomeofthedelusion thathasallowed thedestructionof somany things thatweholdmostdear,soperhapswewillfindwaystostopthedestructionofliberty,andsoon.Ifnotus,thenwho?Ifnotnow,thenwhen?

233PatrickM.Wood,“TechnocracyandtheMakingofChina”,AugustForecast&Review,May22,2013.234MadeInChina:RevengeOfTheNerds,TimeMagazine,June,2001235DavidRockefeller,“IntheBeginning;TheTrilateralCommissionat25”,TrilateralCommission,1998,p.11.236“What’saTechnocrat”,Slate,November11,2011.237“AmericaNeedsLeadersLikeGreece’sPapademosorItaly’sMonti”,U.S.News&WorldReport,March2,2012.238RichardGardner,“TheHardRoadtoWorldOrder”,ForeignAffairs,1974,p.558.239GeorgeOrwell,NineteenEighty-Four,(SignetClassic,1950),Ch.5.

240“EdmundBurke.”BrainyQuote.com.XploreInc.,2014.8September2014.http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/edmundburk108344.html

T APPENDIXITRANSFORMINGCHRISTIANITYHEIMPLICATIONSOFSCIENTISM,TECHNOCRACY

ANDTRANSHUMANISMFORTHECHRISTIANCHURCHARE,INTHISWRITER’SOPINION,QUITEPROFOUND.TWOAREASINPARTICULARAREWORTHDISCUSSING.THEFIRSTISTHESUBJECTOFBIBLEPROPHECY

WHICHHASGENERALLYFALLENOUTOFFAVORWITH

MANYCHRISTIANCHURCHES.THESECONDISTHEREPURPOSINGOFTHECHURCHTOSERVEEARTHLYANDGLOBALISTENDSRATHERTHANTHEGODWHO

SAVESINTHEFIRSTPLACE.THEWORLDLY

PHILOSOPHYOFCOMMUNITARIANISM,CLOSELYCOUPLEDTOTHEPHILOSOPHYOFTECHNOCRACY,ISTHEPRIMARYINSTRUMENTTHATISBRINGINGABOUT

THISTRANSFORMATION.TheRiseandFallofBibleProphecyWhenHalLindseyandCaroleCarlsonfirst published The Late, Great Planet Earth in 1970, interest in Bibleprophecy skyrocketed. Over the next 20 years, their book sold no fewerthan 28million copies tomake it the best-selling book in history, secondonlytotheBibleitself.TheLate,GreatPlanetEarthwas the firstmodernbook that relatedspecific

Biblepropheciestocurrentevents.TheBible’sbooksofDaniel,Isaiah,EzekielandRevelationplayedprominently,andeventslikethere-foundingofIsraelin1948, the congealing of the European Economic Community, famines andearthquakes all appeared tobe easily identifiedbuildingblocksof the foretold“endtimes”andthevisiblereturnofChrist to theearth.Infact,Lindsey’sandCarlson’sargumentsweresocompellingthat it ledthemtotheconclusionthat

“the decade of the 1980s could verywell be the last decade of history asweknowit”,anditignitedthespiritualinquiryofanentiregenerationofChristiansaroundtheworld.ThethoughtthatChristcouldcomeforHisChurchatanytimewasexhilarating.Lookingbackoverthelast45yearssincethebookfirstappeared,therearetwo

key observations. First, Christ did not come during the 1980s, and manyChristians were ultimately left in a dismayed condition thinking perhaps thatsomehowGodhadfailedorletthemdown.Second,Christianswereleftwithafixation on current events as the “proof” that the endwas near, and thus theycontinuetoviewtoday’seventsbasedonLindsey’smodelofpoliticalstructuresandsocietalphenomenon.ThishasprovedfrustratingformanystudentsofBibleprophecyevenifithasnotcausedthemtoabandontheirfaith.Takingafreshlookatthepropheticallandscapeandwiththisspottypastasa

backdrop, one might conclude that people are simply looking in the wrongplaces today. The resulting frustration and waning interest in Prophecy hascreatedavacuuminthechurchthathasbeenfilledbyglobalizationdogmaalongthelinesalreadydiscussedinthisbook.Where are some “better” places to look for prophetical relevance?Take, for

instance,thetopicoftechnologyandacommonlanguage.The“DaysofNoah”asmentionedintheNewTestamentaremostoftenassociatedwiththepre-floodconditionoftheworldandrightlysobecauseitwasaperiodofgreatwickednesson the earth. However, Noah also lived for 350 years after the flood whichshould rightfullybe included in thephrase “DaysofNoah”.Noahbroughthisthreesonsthroughtheflood,withtheirwives,andtheybegantorepopulatetheearth.Oneofhissons,Ham,fatheredasonnamedCushwhointurnsiredasonnamedNimrod: He began to be amighty one in the earth. He was amightyhunterbefore theLordwherefore it issaid,EvenasNimrodthemightyhunterbeforetheLord.AndthebeginningofhiskingdomwasBabel,andErech,andAccad,andCalneh, in the landofShinar. (Genesis10:8-10)TheBibledoesn’trecordmuchaboutNimrod,but itdoesnote that thebeginningofhiskingdomwas Babel, where the infamous Tower of Babel was constructed in rebellionagainstGod.TheOldTestamentaccountof theTowerofBabel inGenesis11 first states,

“And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.” As theystrategizedonhowtobuildatowerallthewaytoHeaven,theydiscoveredanewtechnique for building tall structures.Whereas rocks and mud had been usedpreviously, now uniformly fired bricks and tar would prove far superior.

Simplisticasthissounds,itwasanewtechnologytothem,andonesoexcitingthat theyweredeceivedintothinkingtheycouldactuallybuildthat towerrightintoHeaven.But,whybuildit toHeavenitself?Theimplicationsarethat theyintendedtoinvadeHeavenandbringGoddowntoearth,whichofcourse,wasabjectrebellionagainstGod.Before the tower was completed, however, God intervened to break up the

rebellion by “confusing” their language, causing them to scatter to the fourcorners of the then-known world. My only point here is to point out theconnectionbetweentechnologyandacommonlanguagethatapparentlyenabledtheirrebellion.Today we have a direct parallel that is almost universally unrecognized

because it isnotnecessarily aneventbut rather thedevelopmentof aprocess.Anotherreasonisthatthereisverylittlepublicawarenessofscienceingeneral.Today’s new NBIC technology largely being directed by advocates ofTranshumanism is represented by the convergence of Nanotechnology, Bio-technology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. The TranshumandreamisnolessthantoescapethelawsofsinanddeathandtoassumequalitiesreservedforGod,suchasomniscience,omnipotence,omnipresence,eternality,etc. Thus, the NBIC technology promises to deliver their dream of ultimaterebellion against God. And the language used to construct this modern-dayTower of Babel? It’s not English, German, Latin or Esperanto. Rather, it isdigital.Thehumangenomeiscomparedtoamastercomputerwithfourbuildingblocks that aredigital innature.Themanipulationofmatter at the atomicandmolecular level is controlled by digital computers. The mind is likened to acomputerwithbillionsoftransistorsthatemulateadigitalcomputer.Ifyouweretoassembleagroupof scientists fromaround theworld todiscussNBIC,youwould findunevengroundwith spoken languages, but youwould find perfectfluencywiththisnewdigitallanguage.Thus, this is thenewcommon language spokenby thosewhowouldbuild a

modern Tower of Babel (i.e., Transhumanism) to displace God in the samemanner as the account in Genesis 11. The clear implication of Prophecy fortodayisthatGodwillnotdealwiththiscurrentrebellionuntiltheworldentersthe future 7-year period known as theTribulation as described in the book ofRevelation.Thefirstrebellionendedinhumanitybeingscatteredthroughouttheworldwhichwascertainlyinconvenientbutnotnecessarilydeadly.Thesecondrebellionwillendwithall-consumingjudgment.Another unrecognized aspect of global Technocracy is that this is the first

comprehensive system for global control that the world has ever seen.WhileProphecy students have mostly examined political structures for clues to thefuturereignofantichrist,itisnowonderthattheyhavebeenfrustrated.Thereisanever-endingparadeofchanges inpoliticalalliancesandstructures.Tothinkthat thedisparatepoliticalstructures in theworldwillbemerged intoasingle,functioningpolitical systemby themselves is simply futile.On theotherhand,Technocracy promises to replace the nation-states of the world in one cleansweep. Indeed, if there is any kingdom being prepared by antichrist for thefulfillmentofend-timesevents, it isonebasedonScientism,TechnocracyandTranshumanism - providing systematic and comprehensive control over everyhumanbeingonearthwithoutregardtogeographicboundaries.Inthiswriter’sopinion,topicsliketheseshouldgiverisetorenewedinterestin

Bible prophecy, but unfortunately, the opposite has occurred. Instead, manyprominentpastorsandChristianleadershaveabandonedthestudyofProphecyaltogether. Brian McLaren, a prominent leader in the emerging churchmovementconcludes:ThebookofRevelationisanexampleofpopularliterarygenreofancientJudaism,knowntodayasJewishapocalyptic.TryingtoreaditwithoutunderstandingitsgenrewouldbelikewatchingStarTrekorsomeotherscience fiction show thinking itwas an historical documentary, orwatching asitcom as if it were a religious parable, or reading a satire as if it were abiography.241

RickWarren,megachurchpastorandglobal spokesmanfor“purpose-driven”churchactivism,ismorepointed:IfyouwantJesustocomebacksooner,focusonfulfillingyourmission,notfiguringoutprophecy.242

TheformerleadpastorofMarsHillchurch,MarkDriscoll,elaborated:WearenoteschatologicalTheonomistsorClassicDispensationalists(e.g.Scofield)andbelievethatdivisiveanddogmaticcertaintysurroundingparticulardetailsofJesus’SecondComingareunprofitablespeculation,becausethetimingandexactdetailsofHisreturnareuncleartous.243PerhapsthesepastorsarrivedattheirdimviewofBibleprophecyfordifferent

reasons, but they arrived nonetheless, and their teachings and attitudes haveswept Christendom like a wildfire that refuses to be contained. However,statementsliketheseshouldbringtomindBiblicalwarningssuchas,Knowingthisfirst,thatthereshallcomeinthelastdaysscoffers,walkingaftertheirownlusts,andsaying,Whereisthepromiseofhiscoming?forsincethefathersfellasleep, all things continue as theywere from thebeginningof the creation. (2Peter3:3-4)TransformingtheChurch

AsthecarefulstudyofBibleprophecyhaslargelybeenleftinthedust,ithasalso led to thedeclineof thedoctrineofHeaven that thechurchhasheldasabedrock belief since its founding some 2000 years ago.With this decline hascomea reorientationofworldview fromheavenly toearthly things.Onecouldargue(Iwouldnotdoso,however)thattherewasnoparticularplottodiscreditBible prophecy and the doctrine of Heaven per se, but there is no argumentagainst thefact thatdevilishforces immediatelyraced in tofill thevacuum.Inordertounderstandtheseforcesandthe“replacement”,itisnecessarytoreviewthe philosophical backgroundofCommunitarianismand itsmajor backers andproponentswithinthechurch.TheMerriam-WebsterDictionarydefinesCommunitarianas“oforrelatingto

social organization in small cooperative partially collectivist communities.”Some critics claim thatCommunitarianism is nothingmore thanCommunism,but this isnot likely thecase,andCommunitarians themselves reject this idea.Rather, it more likely reflects Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Technetronic Era, hisfourth and final stage of historical evolution, namely, “the ideal of rationalhumanismon a global scale - the result ofAmerican-Communist evolutionarytransformations”.244ThereisanapocalypticflavortoCommunitarianismduetothefactthatwhenCapitalism(representedbyAmerica)andCommunismcollidehead-on (i.e., toward Technocracy) the resulting chaos will cause all sides tosurrender to a single ideology. Whether described from the perspective ofTechnocracy, Smut’s Holism, Brzezinski’s Technetronic Era, Brundtland’sSustainableDevelopmentorCommunitarianism, the result isexactly thesame:Theindividualceasestohaveanyintrinsicvalueandinsteadreceivesworthonlyindirectproportiontohisorherpositionin,andcontributionto,thecommunity.Allactivityisdirectedtowardthe“commongood”.Oneof the leadingevangelists forCommunitarianismin the lastcenturywas

the famous management consultant and prolific author, Peter Drucker (1909-2005).Ina1999lettertoDrucker,DavidRockefellerheapedpraiseonhimbywriting,Oneofthepieces[articles]spokeofyouappropriatelyas“thefatherofmodernmanagement”.Frommyperspective,thatwasafullyjustifiedaccolade.Your approach to management always appealed to me as being morephilosophicalthandogmatic.…IlearnedmoreabouthowtobeamanagerfromyouthanfromanyoneelseIcanthinkof.245

Indeed,virtuallyeveryFortune500companyintheworldhasbeenthoroughlybaptized inmanagement theory created byDrucker, and countlessmillions ofother managers have read his books, adapting themselves accordingly. Of

course, anyone who has worked for such a corporation knows from directexperience that your value is determined solely by your contribution to the“commongood”.Theday thatyoucease tocontribute to thecommongoodofthat companywill be the same day that you get fired. The corporateworld isharsh in this respect.Corporations build on the same teammentality found inprofessionalsports,andifyouare“ontheteam”thenyouareexpectedtoalwayscontributetotheteamandtonevercontributetothesuccessofanyotherteam.Drucker was steeped in Communitarianism and the application of General

System Theory to all business problems. During the 1990s, he fine-tuned his“three-leggedstool”doctrinethatunderscoredtheneedforcompatibilityamongpolitical,economicandsocialsectorsofsociety.Duringthattime,heshiftedhisfocusmoretowardthesocialsectorasawaytoshoreupdeficiencieshesawinthepoliticalandeconomicarenas.Accordingly,hewrote,Onlythesocialsector,that is, the nongovernmental, nonprofit organization, can createwhatwe nowneed, communities for citizens – and especially for the highly educatedknowledgeworkerswhoincreasinglydominatedevelopedsocieties.Onereasonforthisisthatonlynonprofitorganizationscanprovidetheenormousdiversityof communities we need – from churches to professional associations, fromorganizations taking care of the homeless to health clubs – if there are to befreely chosen communities for everyone. The nonprofit organizations also aretheonlyonesthatcansatisfythesecondneedofthecity,theneedforeffectivecitizenship for its people. Only social-sector institutions can provideopportunitiestobeavolunteer,andthusenableindividualstohavebothasphereinwhich they are in control and a sphere inwhich theymake a difference.246[Emphasisadded]In particular, Drucker decided to focus on the church, and specifically, the

megachurch.Accordingtoonewriter,PeterDruckercallstheemergenceofthelarge pastoral church – the “megachurch” inmediaese – “themost significantsocial event in America today.”He is its intellectual grandfather;he’s beentutoring it for years through the agency ofBobBuford, a highly successfulDallas-based television executive who in 1985 founded the LeadershipNetwork.“HisLeadershipNetwork,”DruckerwritesinhisprefacetoBuford’s1994bookHalfTime:ChangingYourGamePlanfromSuccesstoSignificance,“workedasacatalyst tomake the large,pastoralchurchesworkeffectively, toidentifytheirmainproblems,tomakethemcapableofperpetuatingthemselves(asnoearlier pastoral churchhas everbeenable todo), and to focus themontheirmissionas apostles,witnesses, andcentral community services.”Modest,

Bufordsays,“I’mthelegsforhisbrain.”247

Who is Bob Buford? Until 1999, he was Chairman of the Board of BufordTelevision, Inc., a nationwide network of stations and media interests. Uponselling this business, Buford focused full-time on philanthropy, writing anddeveloping leadership tools for Christian leaders, under the auspices of theorganizationhefoundedin1984,LeadershipNetwork.AccordingtoanofficialbioonBuford,PeterDruckerformallyenteredthepicturein1988:In1988,DickSchubert,FrancesHesselbeinandBobBufordconvincedPeterDruckertolendhisname,hisgreatmind,andoccasionallyhispresencetoestablishanoperatingfoundation for the purpose of leading social sector organizations towardexcellenceinperformance.BobservedastheFoundingChairmanoftheBoardof Governors. Through its conferences, publications and partnerships, TheDrucker Foundation (now titled Leader to Leader Institute) is helping socialsectororganizationsfocusontheirmission,achievetrueaccountability,leverageinnovation,anddevelopproductivepartnerships.248

In 2008, Buford went on to establish The Drucker Institute at ClaremontCollege in California to house all of Drucker’s writings, lectures andmanagementideas.BufordwassubsequentlyappointedChairmanofitsBoardofAdvisors.Thus,thelongandcloserelationshipbetweenPeterDruckerandBobBufordiswelldocumented.However,becauseofBuford’spre-existingactivismwithin the evangelical church in America, the following statement on his biodescribeshimas“someonewantingtomakeadifferencethroughtheapplicationofhis faith and resourcesunder thegeneralmissionof transforming the latentenergyofAmericanChristianityintoactiveenergy.”249

Hereiniscauseforgreatalarm.Whatdoes“transformingthelatentenergyofAmerican Christianity into active energy” mean and where did this mandatecomefrom?FromaBiblicalperspective,theonlyenergyavailabletoChristiansand by extension, churches, is thatwhich is supplied by theHoly Spirit. (See“ForGodhathnotgivenusthespiritoffear;butofpower,andoflove,andofasoundmind.”(2Timothy1:7)and“AndJesusreturnedinthepoweroftheSpiritintoGalilee”(Luke4:14a.)RememberingthatDruckerhadstatedin2001that“Iam not a born-again Christian,”250 it was Drucker nonetheless who seededBuford’smindwiththis“transformingthelatentenergy”doctrine,asheclearlystated in a 2014 interview: Eight years into our work together Peter sawmymission in a single sentence: “To transform the latent energy of AmericanChristianityintoactiveenergy.”251

It was life-changing for Buford at that point, ultimately leading him to

structure his entire Leadership Network operation, which primarily servedchurches, around it.Buford explained, Even then, I didn’t get it right away. Iwaswalking along a road inEast Texaswhen I suddenly thought, “Whoa!” Istoppedandwrotethewordsdown.Hehadsaid,“Atthisstageinyourlife”—hewas a great fan of innovation, sowhatworks in one stage doesn’t in another—“it’sourjobtoreleaseanddirectenergy,nottosupplyit.”252

Shortofanyclearexplanationonthesourceofsuchenergy,andconsideringitwasDrucker’s idea in the firstplace, theonlypossible conclusion is thatbothmenarereferringtoaman-centered,ratherthanHolySpirit-providedenergy.ToDrucker,theenergyavailabletothechurchneededtobepumpedintothesocialcommunity(townsandcities)underthelabelofvolunteerism,socialactionandother typesof community involvement.The third legof his three-legged stoolcould only be built in this manner, and he was very clear about it. In short,Drucker had succeeded in inserting a communitarian virus into America’sremainingevangelicalchurchmovement.Youmightaskasthispoint,“Howdidit spread?” According to the same interview, Buford gives a hint: So his[Drucker’s] influenceonmeand thechurchwasahappyconfluenceof timingandreadiness:ofmypursinghimandhisgeniusformanagement,ourgrowingfriendship,myinterestinthechurch,andthepreparedmindsofBillHybelsandRickWarren and other pastors.When Peter appeared, they were ready. Petersaidtomeonceinaninterview,“Theydidn’tsay,‘Look,leaveusalone.’Theysaid‘Giveusmore.Whereisit?Weneedyou.’”253

Thus, we see that Drucker mentored not only Bob Buford but soon-to-bemegachurchpastorsRickWarren(SaddlebackChurch)andBillHybels(WillowCreekAssociation). The combination ofDrucker’sCommunitarian philosophyandhismassivecollectionofmanagement resources thusbecame thenewandfertile ground for America’s megachurches and another postmodernphenomenon,theso-calledemergentchurch.Inshort,thiswasthebeginningofthe “transforming” of the “latent energy of American Christianity”. Moreimportantly, it iswhat has filled the vacuum left by thewaning of interest inBible prophecy and the doctrine of Heaven as discussed earlier. Today, thisnewly transformed evangelical church is thoroughly focused on earthly, ratherthanheavenly,endeavors.Thisisclearlyreflectedinstatementslikethesefromchurches(largeandsmall)aroundthenation:

Weareafamilyof faith, fullyengaged,transformingourcommunityandourworld.(Vancouver,Washington)

…dedicated toservingJesusandpeople in thecontextof their localcommunity.(Seattle,Washington)…partnerswith communityminded individuals and organizations toserveandtransformourcommunity.(ChapelHill,NorthCarolina)WeareamovementofpeoplewhounderstandweareJesus’plantotransformandhealcommunities.(Granger,Indiana)

Iamnottakingissuewithanyotherchurchdoctrinehere,butonlypointingouttheCommunitarianinfluencethatDruckerhasbroughtintothechurchatlarge.The thought of renewing communities, transforming neighborhoods andmorebroadly, building the Kingdom of God on earth is now frequently seen as areflection in contemporary music as well. One popular contemporary songpleads,BuildYourkingdomhere.

Letthedarknessfear.ShowYourmightyhand.Healourstreetsandland.SetYourchurchonfire.Winthisnationback.Changetheatmosphere.BuildYourkingdomhere.Wepray.254

Ofcourse,thereisnoBiblicalmandatetohealourstreetsandland,towinournation back or to bring theKingdomofGod here. TheBible is clear that theKingdomofGodisinHeavenwheretheKingresidesandthatthosewhobelongtoHimare“strangersandpilgrims”(1Pet2:11)whileonthisearth.Elsewhere,Christiansarealsoinstructedto“notbeconformedtothisworld”butratherbe“transformedbytherenewingofyourmind”(Romans12:2).The result of this Communitarian error is having a profound impact on

thousands of churches in America as the doctrine continues to be spread byLeadership Network and other organizations like it and by people like BobBuford,RickWarrenandBillHybels. It isaperniciouserror that redirects thebeliever’senergyfromheavenlythingstoearthlythings,bringingaboutwhattheBiblelabelsasapostasy,ora“fallingaway”.

ConclusionThereislittledoubthistorically,thatWesternthoughtandculture has been significantly influenced by the presence of theChristianchurchandtheBible.Inourcountry,startingwiththefoundingdocuments

like the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and theConstitution, the founderswere clearly immersed inBiblical thought andprinciples.That isnot to say that theywereallChristians,buteven thosewho were not had great respect for those who were. The 20th centurytheologianandChristianphilosopherDr.FrancisSchaeffercalled this the“Christianconsensus”andnothingmore.Itwasarespectforandelevationof wisdom found rooted in the Bible rather than in humanistic man. Intoday’s postmodern society, the Bible is completely irrelevant to thoseoutsideoftheChurchandunfortunately,ithasn’tfaredmuchbetterwithinthechurch.WhereastheBiblicalmandateforChristiansistobe“saltandlight” to the world, led by pastors towardGodly living,manyChristiansinstead have become little more than community reformers led bycommunityorganizers.And, of course, this is exactlywhatPeterDruckerdesiredmorethananythingelseduringthelastquarterofhislife.AstheChristianconsensusfadesintotheshadows,thestageissetforaglobal

seachangeofunprecedentedmagnitude:Aglobalauthoritarianand totalitariangovernment is on the immediate horizon. Seeing this from a distance, this isexactlywhatSchaefferconcludedwhenhewrotein1976,Atthatpointthewordleftorrightwillmakenodifference.Theyareonlytworoadstothesameend.Thereisnodifferencebetweenanauthoritariangovernmentfromtherightortheleft: The results are the same. An elite, an authoritarianism as such, willgradually force form on society so that it will not go on to chaos. Andmostpeoplewill accept it - from the desire for personal peace and affluence, fromapathy, and from the yearning for order to assure the functioning of somepolitical system,business,and theaffairsofdaily life.That is justwhatRomedidwithCaesarAugustus.255

Of course, there is magnificent hope for all individual Christians who arerooted in thepromisesofChrist found in theBible.Outsideof that, theworldandallwhoareinit,includingthoseChristianswhoaretryingtoreformitfromwithin,maybeinforaveryrockyrideastheworldhurdlestowardTechnocracyandTranshumanismandultimately,towardtotalitariandictatorship.Atthesametimeandasanendingnote,wemustgivespaceforGod,whois

able to intervene in the affairs of man. And He is able to do as He wishes.ChristianscanandshouldpraythatHemightexercisedivineinterventiontoturnthe tide of rebellion back, and perhapsHewill. In themeantime,we allmustanswer Francis Schaeffer’s urgent question, that in light of all these things,“HowShouldWeThenLive?”

241BrianD.Mclaren,TheSecretMessageofJesus:UncoveringtheTruthThatCouldChangeEverything,(Thomas-Nelson,2007),p.175-176.242RickWarren,ThePurposeDrivenLife,(Zondervan,2002),pp.285-286.243MarkDriscoll,co-founderofActs29Network,(http://www.acts29network.org/).244ZbigniewBrzezinski,p.246.245CorrespondencefromDavidRockefellertoPeterDrucker,November30,1999,ClaremontCollegesDigitalLibrary.246PeterF.Drucker,“CivilizingtheCity”,LeadertoLeader,7(Winter1998):8-10.247JackBeatty,TheWorldAccordingtoPeterDrucker,(NewYork:TheFreePress,1998),pp.185-86.248ActiveEnergy,AboutBobBuford,(http://www.activeenergy.net/about-bob/).249HalftimeInstitute,Faculty,Founder.www.halftimeinstitute.org250ClaremontCollegesDigitalLibrary,DruckerArchives,InterviewwithPeterDrucker,2001-12-05.251InterviewbyWarrenBird(President,LeadershipNetwork)withBobBufordonhisbook,DruckerandMe,2014.252Ibid.253Ibid.254BuildYourKingdomHerelyrics,RendCollectiveExperimentband.255FrancisSchaeffer,HowShouldWeThenLive:TheRiseandDeclineofWesternThoughtandCulture,(CrosswayBooks,1979),p.244.

APPENDIXII

1979INTERVIEWWITHGEORGES.FRANKLIN,JR.COORDINATOROF

THETRILATERALCOMMISSION

IntroductionIntheoriginalanalysisoftheTrilateralCommissioninthe1970s,theonlypersonstoactuallyinterviewanddebatemembersofthatelitegroupwereAntonyC.Suttonandme,PatrickWood.From1978through1981,wetogetherorindividuallyengagedatleastsevendifferentCommissionmembersinpublicdebate.OnJuly27,1979,RadioStationKLMG,CouncilBluffs, Iowaairedahighly informative interviewwithGeorge S. Franklin, Jr., Coordinator of the Trilateral Commission and long-time associate of DavidRockefeller.Joe Martin, the commentator on the program, invited authors Antony Sutton and Patrick Wood toparticipate in the questioning.The programwas probably themost penetrating viewofTrilateralismyetuncovered.Onlyonecompletetranscriptremainsintactfromthoseinterviews,anditisreproducedbelow.Hopefully,thiswillgiveyousomeinsightintotheinnerworkings,attitudeandmindsetofCommissionmembers.Lest anyone make accusation that this transcript was selectively edited to show a “bad light” on theCommission,itisreprintedinfull,withoutedit.Editor’scommentsareaddedincertainplacestoclarifythefacts, when appropriate, and are clearly identified to the reader as such. Members of the TrilateralCommission are noted in bold type. The entire interviewwas first and only published in theTrilateralObserverin1979,whichwaspublishedbyPatrickWoodandTheAugustCorporation.

TheInterviewCommentator:Hello.Wood:Hello.Commentator:IsthisMr.Wood?Wood:Yes,itis.Commentator:PatrickWood,wehaveAntonySuttonontheotherline.Youtwoaretherenow,right?Wood:Yes.Commentator:Areyoutheretoo,Mr.Sutton?Sutton:Yes.Commentator:Allright.BeforewegetMr.Franklinonthephone,tellus,whatisyourconciseopinionoftheTrilateralCommission?Sutton:ItwouldseemthatthisisDavidRockefeller’sconcept,hiscreation;hefinancedit.TheTrilateralCommissionhasonly77orsoAmericanmembers.It’saclosedelitistgroup.IdonotbelievethattheyinanywayrepresentgeneralthinkingintheUnitedStates.Forexample,theywanttorestricttherightsofthemediainviolationoftheConstitution.

[Ed:ComparethisinitialstatementtoFranklin’sadmissionsduringtheinterview.]Commentator:Theywanttorestricttherightsofthemedia?Sutton:Yes.Commentator:Allright,wehaveMr.GeorgeFranklinonthephonerightnow,okay?Hangon,gentlemen.Hello,amItalkingtoMr.GeorgeS.Franklin?Franklin:Thatisright.Commentator:YouarecoordinatoroftheTrilateralCommission?Franklin:Thatisright.Commentator:Mr.Franklin,myname is JoeMartin. I have twoother gentlemenon the line and I havelistenersonthelinetoo,whowouldliketoaskafewquestionsregardingtheTrilateralCommission.Areyoupreparedtoanswersomequestions,sir?Franklin:Ihopeso.Commentator:IstheTrilateralcommissionpresentlyinvolvedinanyefforttomakeaone-world?Franklin:Definitelynot.Wehavenot.Wehavenoone-worlddoctrine.Ouronlybelief that is sharedbymostof themembersof theCommission itself is that thisworldwill somehowdobetter if theadvancedindustrialdemocracythatservesJapanandtheUnitedStatescancooperateandtalkthingsouttogetherandtrytoworkonprogramsratherthanatcrosspurposes,butdefinitelynotanyideaofaworldgovernmentoragovernmentoftheseareas.[Ed:“Definitely not,” saysFranklin.Numerous statements inTrilateralwritings showFranklin is inerror.Forexample:“Theeconomicofficialsofatleastthelargestcountriesmustbegintothinkintermsofmanagingasingleworldeconomyinadditiontomanaginginternationaleconomicrelationsamongcountries,”TrilateralCommissionTaskForceReports:9-14,page268.]

Commentator: Why is it, in the Trilateral Commission that the nameDavid Rockefeller shows up sopersistentlyor[thenameof]oneofhisorganizations?Franklin:Well,thisisveryreasonable.DavidRockefelleristheChairmanoftheNorthAmericangroup.Therearethreechairmen:oneis[with]theNorthAmericangroup,oneis[with]theJapanesegroup,andone

is[with]theEuropeangroup.Also,theCommissionwasreallyDavidRockefeller’soriginalidea.[Ed:Note thatFranklin does not say (at this point) that the TrilateralCommissionwas financed andestablishedbyDavidRockefeller.]

Commentator:OnPresidentCarter’sstaff,howmanyTrilateralCommissionmembersdoyouhave?Franklin:Eighteen.Commentator:Don’tyouthinkthatisratherheavy?Franklin:Itisquitealot,yes.Commentator:Don’tyouthinkitisratherunusual?HowmanymembersarethereactuallyintheTrilateralCommission?Franklin:Wehave77intheUnitedStates.Commentator:Don’tyouthinkitisratherunusualtohave18membersontheCarterstaff?Franklin:Yes, I thinkwe chose somevery able peoplewhenwe started theCommission.ThePresidenthappenstothinkwellofquiteanumberofthem.Commentator:Allright,wewouldliketobringinourtwootherguests-menwhohavewrittenabookontheTrilateralCommission.YoumaybefamiliarwithMr.AntonySuttonandMr.PatrickWood?Franklin:Ihavenotmetthem,butIdoknowtheirnames,yes.Commentator:Mr.SuttonandMr.Wood,wouldyoucaretoaskMr.Franklinaquestion?Sutton:Well,Icertainlywould.ThisisTonySutton.Youhave77membersofwhich18areintheCarterAdministration.DoyoubelievethattheonlyablepeopleintheUnitedStatesareTrilateralists?Franklin:Ofcoursenot,andincidentally,the18arenolongermembersoftheCommissionbecausethisissupposed to be a private organization and as soon as anybody joins the government they no longer aremembersoftheCommission.Sutton:Yes,buttheyaremembersoftheCommissionwhentheyjoin.Franklin:Thatiscorrect.Sutton:DoyoubelievethattheonlyablepeopleintheUnitedStatesareTrilateralists?Franklin:Ofcoursenot.Sutton:Well,howcometheheavypercentage?Franklin:Well,whenwestartedtochoosemembers,wedidtrytopickouttheablestpeoplewecouldandIthinkmanyofthosethatareintheCarterAdministrationwouldhavebeenchosenbyanygroupthatwasinterestedintheforeignpolicyquestion.Sutton:WouldyousaythatyouhaveanundueinfluenceonpolicyintheUnitedStates?Franklin:Iwouldnot,no.Sutton: I think any reasonablemanwould say that if you have 18 Trilateralists out of 77 in the CarterAdministrationyouhaveapreponderantinfluence.Franklin:ThesemenarenotresponsivetoanythingthattheTrilateralCommissionmightadvocate.Wedohaveabouttworeportsweputouteachyear,andwedohopetheyhavesomeinfluenceorwewouldnotputthemout.

[Ed:TheTrilateralCommissionputsout considerablymore than tworeports eachyear. In1974and1976,itwasfourineachyearplusfourissuesof“Trialogue”]

Sutton:MayIaskanotherquestion?Franklin:Yes.

Sutton:WhofinancedtheTrilateralCommissionoriginally?Franklin:Uhh...ThefirstsupporterofallwasafoundationcalledtheKetteringFoundation.Icantellyouwhoisfinancingitatthepresenttime,whichmightbeofmoreinteresttoyou.

[Ed: This is what Franklin said in another interview: “In the meantime, David Rockefeller and theKetteringFoundationhadprovidedtransitionalfunding.”]

Sutton:IsitnottheRockefellerBrothers’Fund?Franklin:TheRockefellerBrothers’Fund?TheNorthAmericanendoftheCommissionneeds$1.5millionoverthenext3years.Ofthisamount,$180,000willbecontributedbytheRockefellerBrother’sfundand$150,000byDavidRockefeller.Commentator:DoesthatmeanthatmostofitisbeingfinancedbytheRockefellers?Franklin:No,itmeansthataboutonefifthoftheNorthAmericanendisbeingfinancedbytheRockefellersandnoneoftheEuropeanandJapaneseend.Commentator:Doyouhaveanyfurtherquestions,Mr.Sutton?Sutton:No,Idonot.Commentator:Doyouhaveaquestion,Mr.Wood?Wood:Yes,Ihaveonequestion.Inreadingyourliteratureandreports,thereisagreatdealofmentionoftheterm“Interdependence”.Franklin:Right.Wood:Whilewecanseethatthereissomeneedfortheworldtocooperateinmanyareas,thissystemofinterdependenceseemstohavesomeveryprofoundeffectontheUnitedStatesstructureasitistoday.Forinstance,ournationalstructureversustheinterdependentstructureintheworld.Now,doyoufeelthatthisinterdependentstructurehasbeenproperlypresentedtotheAmericanpublicforapprovalordisapproval?Franklin:Well,Idon’tthinkthatitisaquestionofapprovalordisapprovalaltogether.Forexample,wegetagreatdealofournatural resources fromabroad.Everybodyknows thatwegetagreatdealofoil fromabroad.So,whetherwe like itornot,wearemuchmoredependentonothernations thatweused tobe.Now,thisdoesnotmeanthattheymakeourdecisionsforusonwhatourpoliciesaregoingtobe,andourenergy policies aremade here by the President and Congress. Now, they do consult others about thembecausetheyhaveto,becauseunfortunatelyweareforcedtobecomeinterdependent.

[Ed:Theterm“interdependent”isakeywordinTrilateralism.Thinkforamoment:Theknownworldhas always been more or less interdependent. Trilateralists use “interdependence” in a manneranalogous to the propagandamethods ofGoebbels: if you repeat a phrase often enough peoplewillbegin toaccept it automatically in the required context.The requiredcontext forTrilaterals is togetacrosstheideathat“one-world”isinevitable.”]

Commentator:Doesthatansweryourquestion,Mr.Wood?Wood:Well,perhapsnotcompletely,letmephrasethatanotherway.Doyoufeelthatyourpolicy-thatis,thosewhorepresenttheTrilateralpolicyaswellasinterdependence-doyoufeelthatthatphilosophyisinaccordwiththetypicalAmericanphilosophyofnationalismanddemocracyandsoon?Franklin: Well, I think I would answer that this way. First, we are in fact interdependent. I say,unfortunately,wedependonmuchmorethatweusedto.Therefore,wehavetocooperatefarmorethanweusedto.But,thatdoesnotmeanthatwearegivingotherpeopletherighttodetermineourpolicyandwedonotadvocatethat.Youwillnotfindthatinanyofourreports.[Ed:NoticehowFranklinducksaroundthekeyissuepresentedbyWood, i.e.,whethertheconceptasusedbyTrilaterals is inconsistentwithgenerallyacceptedAmerican ideals.Woodsaidnothingabout

“...givingotherpeople theright todetermineourpolicy.”This isastrawmanerectedbyFranklin toducktheissue.]

Wood:Do you feel that the Trilateral Commission position has been publicized really at all around thecountry?Franklin:Wetrytopublicizeit,wedonotaltogethersucceedbecausetherearesomanyotherpeoplewhoalsowantpublicity,butwedotry.Anythingwedoisopentopublicscrutiny.[Ed:TheAugustCorporationhadrecentlycommissioneda thoroughsearchof themassiveNewYorkTimescomputerizeddatabase.WecameupwithaverymeagerlistofreferencestoTrilateralism.Only71references in thepast sixyears inallmajorU.S.and foreignpublications.Manyof thesewerenomorethanshortparagraphs.WeknowthattheTrilateralCommissionmailinglisthasonly4,000namesincludingallits250membersand600orsoCongressmenandelitists.Inbrief,mediacoveragehasbeen-andis-extremelysmall.The71citationsbythewayincludemostlycriticalarticlesfromindependentauthors.ItalsoincludessucheffortsastheTimefront-pagepromotionofJimmyCarterforPresident-probablythekeyeffortonCarter’sbehalf.HedleyDonovanwasthenEditor-in-ChiefofTime.]

Commentator:Mr.Sutton?Sutton:PaulVolckerwasamemberoftheTrilateralCommissionandhasjustbeenappointedChairmanofthe Federal Reserve Board. Does Paul Volcker have any connection with Chase Manhattan which isdominatedbyRockefellers?Franklin:Hewas,quitealongtimeago,onthestaffof[Chase]Manhattan.[Ed:PaulVolckerhastwiceworkedforChaseManhattanBank.Inthe1950sasaneconomistandagaininthe1960sasVicePresidentforPlanning.WecannotdenythatVolcker“knowsabout(Trilateral)financialpolicies”asstatedbyFranklin.]Sutton:Don’t you think that this is quite an unhealthy situation,where you have aman connectedwithChase who is now Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board? Doesn’t this give some credence to thecriticismofelitism?Franklin:Conflictofinterest?Sutton:Yes.Franklin:Itdoesgivesomecredencetoit.Ontheotherhand,itisveryimportantthattheChairmanoftheFederalReserveBankknowaboutourfinancialpoliciesand,therefore,willcertainlyhavebeenconnectedto some financial institution. This has not always been the case. I think that anyone who knowsPaulVolcker,knowsthatheisanextraordinarilyobjectiveperson.Ithinkifyouwouldnotice,thattheeditorialcomments on his appointments were almost uniformly favorable, theremust have been some that wereunfavorable,butIhavenotseenthem.Sutton:MayIaskanotherquestion?Commentator:GoAhead.Sutton:Mr.Donovan, of Time-Life, has just been appointed Special Assistant to President Carter.Mr.DonovanisamemberofyourCommission.Franklin:Thatiscorrect.Sutton:DoesthisnotemphasizethefactthattheCarterAdministrationischoosingitsadministrationfromanextremelyanarrowrange.Inotherwords,theTrilateralCommission?Franklin:Idonotthinkthatthatneedsanyconfirmation.Thatisamatteroffactthathehaschosenmostofhismainforeignpolicypeople,Iwouldhavetosay,fromthepeoplehegottoknowwhilehewasontheTrilateralCommission.[Ed:Franklinadmitsthatthe“CarterAdministrationischoosingitsadministrationfromanextremely

narrowrange.”]Sutton:Well,IcanonlymakethestatementthatthisleavesanyreasonablemanwiththeimpressionthattheCarter Administration is dominated by the Trilateral Commission with your specific ideas which manypeopledonotagreewith.Franklin: Well, I would certainly agree that people who were members of the Commission havepredominantplacesintheforeignpolicyaspectsoftheCarterAdministration.Theyarenot,becausetheyaremembersof theCommission,controlled inanysensebyus. Ido think that theydoshareacommonbeliefthatisveryimportantthatweworkparticularlywithEuropeandJapanorweareallgoingtobeintrouble.Sutton:ButthiscommonbeliefmaynotreflectthebeliefsoftheAmericanpeople.Howdoyouknowthatitdoes?Franklin:Idonotknowthatitdoes.Iamnomantointerpretwhatthepeoplethinkabout.Sutton:Inotherwords,youarequitewillingtogoahead[and]establishaCommissionwhichyousaydoesnotnecessarilyreflect theviewsof thepeople in theUnitedStates?Itappears tomethatyouhavetakenoverpoliticalpower.Franklin:Idonotthinkthisistrueatall.Anybodywhoformsagroupforcertainpurposesobviouslytriestoachievethesepurposes.WedobelievethatitisimportantthatEurope,Japan,andtheUnitedStatesgetalongtogether.Thatmuchwedobelieve.WealsochosethebestpeoplewecouldgetasmembersoftheCommission. Fortunately, nearly all accepted. The Presidentwas one of them and he happened to havethoughtthatthesewereveryablepeopleindeed,andheaskedthemtobeinhisgovernment,itisassimpleasthat.IfyouaregoingtoaskmeifIamveryunhappyaboutthat,theanswerisno.Ithinkthatthesearegoodpeople.Wood:MayIaskalittlebitmorepointedly,ifCartergothiseducationfromtheTrilateralCommission,wasnothisdeanofstudents,sotospeak,Mr.Brzezinski?Franklin:IcannottellyouexactlywhatroleBrzezinskihad,butcertainlyhedidhaveconsiderableeffectontheeducationCarterreceivedonforeignpolicy.Wood:Mr.BrzezinskiisonrecordinmorethanoneofhisbooksasbeingaproponentofrejuvenatingorredesigningtheU.S.Constitution,isthiscorrect?Franklin: Ihavenot readallhisbooks, Ihavenotseen thatstatement,andIhaveworkedwithhimverycloselyforthreeyearsandhehasnotsaidanythingofthatsorttome.Wood:Asamatteroffact,heisonrecordandinoneofhisbooksasindicatingthattheU.S.Constitutionasitistodayisnotabletoleadusintoaninterdependentworldandthatitshouldberedesignedtoreflecttheinterdependencethatwemustmoveaheadtowards.Franklin:AsIsay,ifyoutellmethat,Imustbelieveit,andIhavenotreadthatbookandIhavenevergotanyinklingofthatbetween1973and1976.

[Ed: Here is what Brzezinski writes in one of his books Between Two Ages: America’s Role in theTechnetronicEra:Tensionisunavoidableasmanstrivestoassimilatethenewintotheframeworkoftheold.Foratimetheestablishedframeworkresilientlyintegratesthenewbyadaptingitinamorefamiliarshape. But at some point the old framework becomes overloaded. The new input can no longer beredefinedintotraditionalforms,andeventuallyitassertsitselfwithcompellingforce.Today,though,theold framework of international politics - with their spheres of influence, military alliances betweennation-states, the fiction of sovereignty, doctrinal conflicts arising fromnineteenth century crises - isclearlynolongercompatiblewithreality.”andspecificallyonchangingtheU.S.Constitution:

Theapproaching two-hundredthanniversaryof theDeclarationof Independencecould justify thecallfor a national constitutional convention to re-examine the nation’s formal institutional framework.Either1976or1989-thetwo-hundredthanniversaryoftheConstitutioncouldserveasasuitabletargetdate culminating a national dialogue on the relevance of existing arrangements... Realism, however,forcesus to recognize that thenecessarypolitical innovationwill not come fromdirect constitutionalreform,desirableasthatwouldbe.Theneededchangeismorelikelytodevelopincrementallyandlessovertly ... in keepingwith the American tradition of blurring distinctions between public and privateinstitution.ObviouslyFrankliniseitherunawareofthewritingofhis“close”associateBrzezinskiorisevadingthequestion.]

Commentator:IwouldliketointerjectaquestionifIcould.Mr.Franklin,withintheTrilateralCommission,arethereanyTrilateralistswhohavecontroloftheenergyresourcesinthisworld?Franklin:No.WehavenomajoroilcompaniesrepresentedontheCommission.Commentator:Imeanstockholdersinoilcompanies.Franklin:IamsurethatDavidRockefellermusthavesomestockinanoilcompany.Idonotknow.Commentator:Doesn’tDavidRockefellerhavestockinChaseNationalBank?Franklin:DefinitelyCommentator:Doesn’tChaseNationalBankhavestockinExxon?Franklin:Honestly,Idonotknow.Commentator:StandardOil?Mobil?Sutton:Well,Ido.Franklin: I would be certain that some of their pension trusts and some of the trusts that they hold forindividuals,undoubtedlydo.Commentator:So,theTrilateralCommissionhasnoeffectatallintheenergyfieldatall?Franklin:Yes, theTrilateralCommissionhaswrittena reportonenergy.Therewere threeauthors, therewerealwaysthreeauthors.TheAmericanauthorwasJohnSawhill,whowasformerlyheadoftheEnergyAdministrationandisnowpresentlyofNewYorkUniversity.Commentator: Ihavereadwhere theoilandgasworld isdominatedbysevenmajor firms,doyouagreewiththat?Franklin:Idonothaveexpertiseinthisfield,butIthinkitsoundsreasonable.Commentator:Well,alistingofcontrollingownershipinthesemajoroilandgascompaniesbybanks-byTrilateral Commissioners - is listed as Manufacturer’s Hanover, Chase Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, FirstNational Bank of Chicago, and First Continental of Illinois. And these all supposedly are of Trilateralrepresentation.Isthattrue,sir?Franklin:No,sir,itisnottrue.Givemethelistagain.IthinkIcantellyouwhichareandwhicharenot.Commentator:Manufacturer’sHanover.Franklin:No,sir,itisnot.Commentator:Therearenostockholdersinthat,whoaremembersoftheTrilateralCommission?Franklin:Waitaminute.IcannottellyouwhethertherearenostockholdersinManufacturer’sHanover.ImightevenbeastockholderinManufacturer’sHanover.Iamnot.Commentator:ChaseManhattanfiguresprominently.Franklin:ChaseManhattancertainly.

Commentator:…whichisDavidRockefeller’sBank!Franklin:Thereisnoquestionaboutthat.Commentator:Sothereissomeconnectionwiththeenergyfield.Franklin:Well,yes.Commentator:So,ifChaseManhattanhasstockinExxon,Mobil,andStandardOil,thenthereisadirectconnectionthere?Franklin:Iamsurethatistrue.Everybankrunspensiontrusts,soitmusthavesomeofitstrustmoneyinsomeofthosecompanies.Commentator:Ihaveread,andIdonotknowifitistrue,youmayanswerthis,thatChaseManhattanisanumberonestockholderinExxon,numberthreeinMobil,andnumbertwoinStandardOil.Franklin:Ijustwouldnotknow.Commentator:Doyouhaveanyquestions,Mr.Sutton?Sutton:Yes,thefiguresyouhavejustquotedaboutChaseManhattanstockownershipintheoilcompanies:these were published by the U.S. Senate some years ago. There is a series of these volumes. One, forexample,isentitledDisclosureofCorporateOwnership.

[Ed:Anyreaderinvestigatingfurthershouldnotethattheownershipisheavilydisguisedbyuseof nominee companies. For example “Cudd&Co.” is a fictitious nominee name forChaseManhattanBank.]A partial list of nominees which have been used by Chase Manhattan Bank includes thefollowing:Andrews&Co.Elzay&Co.Reeves&Co.Bedle&CoGansel&Co.Ring&Co.Bender&Co.Gooss&Co.Ryan&Co.ChaseNomineesLtd.Gunn&Co.Settle&CoClint&Co.Kane&Co.Taylor&WittCudd&Co.McKenna&Co.Timm&Co.Dell&Co.Padom&Co.Titus&Co.Egger&Co.PickeringLtd.White&Co.Ehren&Co.

Franklin:Iamsurethatthesebankscouldrunbillionsofdollarsthroughtrustsandsomeofthetrustsmustbeinvestedinsomeofthesemajoroilcompanies.Commentator:ThentheTrilateralCommissionmemberwhohasstockinthebankandwhoisalsoahigh-rankingTrilateralCommissionmember,wouldhavesomejurisdictionoverenergy?Franklin:No,notreally.Iknowsomeofthemanagementofthesecompanies.Theyarenotcontrolledbythestockholdersthewaytheyusedtobe.Wood: Let’s put that question another way if we might. It perhaps would be erroneous to say ChaseManhattanBankcontrolledExxon,because in fact, theydonot.However,ChaseManhattanBank is thelargest single shareholder that Exxon has. Considering the discussion going on about the major oilcompanies,andtheirpartinthisenergycrisis,don’tyouthinkthatitwouldbepossibletoexercisecontrolfromChaseManhattanBanktoputpressureonExxontohelpalleviatetheenergycrisis?Franklin:Well,I thinkyoucouldanswerthatkindofquestionjustaswell,asIcan.Everybodyhastheirownviewsonthesethings.

Commentator: You must be familiar with the members of your Commission, especially with Mr.Rockefellerandhisvariousholdings?Franklin:IamextremelyfamiliarwithMr.Rockefeller.Ihaveknownhimfornearly50years.Commentator:...andhisholdings?Franklin:Iamnotatallfamiliarwithhisholdings.Commentator: I thinkeverybody is familiarwithhisholdings. I thoughteverybodywasfamiliarwithhisholdings,IknowheownsChaseManhattanBank.Franklin:No,thatisnottrue.Commentator:Imean,heisthelargeststockholder.Franklin:That,Iwouldagreeto.Iwouldsaythathehasaboutfivepercent,Iamnotsure.Commentator:Fivepercent?Wouldyouagreewiththat,Mr.Sutton?Sutton:Yes,plusheischairmanoftheboard.Franklin:Yes,thatiscorrect.IhavenodoubtthathedoescontrolChaseManhattanBank.Commentator:Youhavenodoubtaboutthat?Franklin:No,basically,no.Directorsareimportant.Commentator:Doyouhaveanydoubt that as chairman,hecontrols thebankandChaseManhattanalsocontrolsoratleastpartlycontrolstheAmericanElectricPower[theutilitycompany]?Franklin:Idonotknowanythingaboutit.Commentator:Youarenotsureaboutthat?Franklin: I just don’t know.These things do not ever really enter into consideration. If you look at ourenergyreportthatwilltellyouwhetheryouthinkthisisanobjectiveoreffectivedocumentornot.[Ed:ChaseManhattanBankowns1,646,706sharesofAmericanElectricPowerCompanythroughtwonominees,<Kane&Co.(1,059,967shares)andCudd&Co.(586,739shares)>.Thisgivesitadirect2.8percentofthetotal.However,numerousotherholdinginAmericanElectricPoweraremaintainedbybanksandfirmswhereChasehassomedegreeofcontrol.Forexample,MorganGuarantyhasalmost500,000 shares and is dominated by J.P.Morgan; the second largest stockholder in J.P.Morgan isChaseManhattanBank.]

Commentator:Mr.Sutton?Sutton:Canwegooffenergyforawhile?Commentator:Yes.Sutton:IhaveaquestionforMr.Franklin.WhochoosesthemembersoftheTrilateralcommission?Franklin:TheTrilateralCommission’sExecutiveCommittee.Sutton:Whocomprisesthecommittee?Franklin:Whoisonthatcommittee?Sutton:Yes.Franklin:Okay.WilliamColeman,formerSecretaryofTransportation,whoisalawyer;LaneKirkland,whoisSecretary-GeneraloftheAmericanFederationofLabor;HenryKissinger,whodoesnotneedtoomuch identification;BruceMcLaury,who ispresidentof theBrookings Institution;DavidRockefeller;RobertIngersoll,whowasformerlyDeputySecretaryofStateandAmbassadortoJapan;I.W.Able,whowas formerlyheadofUnitedSteelworkers;andWilliamRoth,who isaSanFranciscobusinessmanandwaschieftradenegotiatorinthepreviousKennedytraderound.

Sutton:May I ask aquestion?Howmanyof thesehave a rather intimatebusiness relationshipwithMr.Rockefeller?Franklin:HenryKissingerischairmanofMr.Rockefeller’sChaseAdvisoryCommittee.Sutton:Coleman?Franklin:Coleman,Idon’tthinkhasanybusinessrelationshipwithhim,heisalawyer.[Ed: In fact William Coleman is a Director of Chase Manhattan Bank which Franklin has alreadyadmittedtobecontrolledbyDavidRockefeller.]

Sutton:Mr.Ingersoll?Franklin:Mr.Ingersoll,Idon’tthinkhasanybusinessrelationship.Sutton:Isn’theconnectedwithFirstChicago?Franklin:HeisvicechairmanoftheUniversityofChicago.Sutton:No,whatabouttheFirstBankofChicago?[FirstChicagoCorp.]Franklin: Idon’tbelieve that Ingersollhas any relationshipwithbanks inChicago,but Idon’tknow forcertainonthat.[Ed:Robert Stephen Ingersoll before joining theWashington“revolving door”was a director of theFirstNationalBankofChicago,asubsidiaryofFirstChicagoCorp.ThelargestsingleshareholderinFirst Chicago is David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank. Ingersoll has also been a director ofAtlanticRichfieldandBurlingtonNorthern.ChaseManhattan isalso the largestsinglestockholder inthesetwocompanies.Thus,IngersollhasalongstandingrelationshipwithRockefellerinterests.]

Commentator:Weareaddinganothermantotheinterview,hisnameisMr.JohnRees,averyfinewriterfrom the Review of the News, Washington, D.C., who is in the area right at this time to make somespeeches.Sutton:Mr.Franklin,doyoubelieveinfreedomofthepressintheUnitedStates?Franklin:Definitely,ofcourse.Sutton:LetmequoteyoufromabookCrisisInDemocracy,writtenbyMichelCrozier,whoisaTrilateralmember.Franklin:Correct.Sutton:Iamquotingfrompage35ofhisbook:“Themediahasthusbecomeanautonomouspower.Wearenowwitnessingacrucialchangewiththeprofession.Thatis,mediatendstoregulateitselfinsuchawayastoresistthepressurefromfinancialorgovernmentinterests.”Doesthatnotmeanthatyouwanttorestrictthepressinsomeway?Franklin:Ican’tquitehearyou.Sutton: Let me paraphrase this for you. I think I will be clear in my paraphrasing. The TrilateralCommission is unhappy with the press because it resists the pressure from financial or governmentinterests.Thatisoneofyourstatements.Franklin: Now, let me say something about our book. The book that we put out, the report, is theresponsibilityoftheauthorsandnotoftheCommissionitself.Youwillfindthatinthebackofanumberofthem,andthatbookisoneofthem,thatothermembersoftheCommissionwillheardissentingviews,andyouwillfinddissentingviewsinthebackofthatbookonthepressquestion.Sutton:Iwouldliketoquoteafurtherstatementfromthesamebookandleavethequestionsatthatpoint:“The media deprives government and to some extent other responsible authorities of the time lag andtolerancethatmakeitpossibletoinnovateandtoexperimentresponsibly.”Whatthebookrecommendsissomething like the Interstate Commerce Commission to control the press. This seems to me to be a

violationoftheConstitution.Franklin:IwouldagreewithyouthatwedonotwantsomethingliketheInterstateCommerceCommissiontocontrolthepress.[Ed:MichelCrozier,etal,inCrisisInDemocracymakethefollowingstatementswithreferencetothe“InterstateCommerceActandtheShermanAnti-trustAct”:“Somethingcomparableappearstobenowneededwithrespecttothemedia....thereisalsotheneedtoassuretothegovernmenttherightandtheabilitytowithholdinformationatthesource”(page182).Theauthorsgoon toargue that if journalistsdonot conform to thesenewrestrictive standards then“Thealternativecouldwellberegulationbythegovernment.”]

Sutton:IfailtounderstandwhytheTrilateralCommissionwouldassociateitselfwithsuchaviewpoint.Franklin:AsIjustmentionedtoyou.Wehiredthreeauthorsforeachreport.Theauthorsareallowedtosaywhat they think is correct.What the Trilateral Commission does is this: It says we think this report isworthwhileforthepublictosee.ThisdoesnotmeanthatallthemembersoftheCommissionagreewithallthestatementsinthereportand,infact,amajorityofthemmightdisagreewithcertainthings.Now,whereastatementisonethatmanyCommissionersseemtodisagreewithwethendoputinthebackasummaryofthediscussion.Thatbookdoeshaveasummaryofthediscussionofourmeetingwhichquestionsvariousthingsinthebook,inthebackofit.Sutton:WouldyousayMr.FranklinthatthemembersoftheCommissiondohaveacommonphilosophy?Franklin:Yes.Ithinkacommonphilosophy.Ithinkthatallofthembelievethatthisworldwillworkbetteriftheprincipalindustrialpowersconsulteachotherontheirpoliciesandtrytoworkthemouttogether.Thisdoesnotmeanthattheywillagreeoneverything.Ofcourse,theywon’t.But,atleasttheywillknowwhattheothercountriesfeel,andwhytheyfeelit.Sutton:TheFinancialTimes inLondon--theeditorisFerdyFisher,aTrilateralist.Hefiredalongtimeeditorial writer, Gordon Tether, because Tether wanted to write articles criticizing the TrilateralCommission.Doyouhaveanycomments?Franklin:Ididn’tknowthatatall.Itsoundsterriblyunlikely,butifyousaythatitisso,probablyitis.[Ed: See Chapter Seven “Trilateral Censorship: the case of C. Gordon Tether” in Trilaterals OverWashington. Trilaterals see the media as the “gatekeeper” and comment as follows: “Their mainimpactisvisibility.Theonlyrealeventistheeventthatisreportedandseen.Thus,journalistspossessacrucialroleasgatekeepersofoneofthecentraldimensionsofpubliclife.”]

Rees:Frankly,Mr.Martin,withAntonySuttonontheline,Ifeelabsolutelyanovice,becauseAntonyisarealexpertontheTrilateral.Sutton:Well,Iamlookingforinformation.Commentator:Areyougettinginformation?Sutton:Yes,Iamverydefinitelygettinginformation.Commentator:Doyouhaveanyotherquestions?Sutton:Notatthemoment.I’dratherhearsomeoneelse.Commentator:Allright.Wood: I do have one question, if Imight.Youmentioned earlier that as you decided to issue a report,whetheritreflectedTrilateralpolicyornot,youfeltthatitwasworthytobesharedwiththepublic.Isthatcorrect?Franklin:WedonothaveaTrilateralpolicy,exceptfortheverybroadpolicy[which]isthateachofthesemajorareasoughttoknowwhattheothercountriesaredoingandwhyandtrytoworkthingsoutasmuch

aspossible.ThatisouronlyTrilateralpolicy,Iwouldsay.Wedon’thaveapolicyonenergyandapolicyonmonetaryreformandapolicyon,etc.

[Ed: The latest issue of Trialogue (Summer 1979) has an opening paragraph as follows:“The draftreportpresented inTokyoby theTrilateralTaskForceonPaymentsImbalancesanalyzes theextremepaymentsimbalanceswhichhavemarkedtheworldeconomythroughoutthe1970’sandoffersaseriesofbroadpolicyrecommendations…”

PartIIofthesameissuehasthefollowingopeningparagraph:“ThedraftreportpresentedinTokyobythe Trilateral Task Force on Industrial Policy... reviews the desirable aims and criteria of trilateralindustrialpoliciesandtheirinternationalimplications.”YetFranklinasserts“Wedon’thaveapolicyonenergyandapolicyonmonetaryreform,etc.”]

Wood:Okay,letmeaskaquestion.Basedonthatthen,whateffortshaveyoumade,ifany,topublishthesearticlesor thesestudiesso theymightbe reviewedby thegeneralAmericanpublic?For instance, Ihaveneverseenonestudypublishedinanymajorpopularmagazine,whetheritbeTimeMagazine,anewspaper-- in fact, there have been very few references. Over a period of six years now, there have been fewmentionsof thename“TrilateralCommission” in thenation’spress.This isbackedupby theNewYorkTimesdatabase,whichisoneofthemostextensiveintheworld.Nowifthesearemadepublic,canyoutellmehowthesearemadepublic?Franklin:Yes.Whatwedois,thatwehavealistofabout4,000people,someofwhomrequestthemandsomeofwhomwethoughtwouldbeinterestedifwesentthem--andwesendthemfree--andwewouldbeglad to send them toyou, forexample, ifyouwould like tohave them.Nowwealso,whenwepublish,whenwe send them out to a considerable list of press correspondents.We also have press lunches andthings.Becauseof thenatureof this thing, it can’tbeprinted in full, because theyare just too long.Nonewspaperwantstoprinta40-or50-pagestudy.But,therehavebeenmentionsofoneortwoofthestudiesinNewsweek.Wewouldliketogetmorepublished,frankly,verymuchmorethanwehavebeengetting.NowinJapan,forexample,wehavedonemuchbetter.AtourlastplenarysessioninTokyo,membersoftheCommissionwhowerethere,gaveover90separateinterviewstomembersoftheJapanesepresswhowerepresent.Infact,thereweremanymorerequeststhanthatwhichwecouldnothonorbecausetherewasnottime.Wehavenotdoneanythinglikeaswellinthiscountry.Wood:Allowme to ask you this. This takes specifically one case, the case ofTimeMagazine.HedleyDonovan is the formereditor-in-chiefof thatmagazine. Iunderstandhe is recently retired,andalsoyouhaveasamemberofyourCommission,SolLinowitz,alsoadirectorofTime.Now,Time-Lifebooks,ofcourse, youhaveTimeMagazine,Fortune,MoneyandPeople.Now Iwould askyou -- considering thespecial advantageyouhavebyhaving such agiant asHedleyDonovan andSolLinowitz aswell, bothconnected toTime -- don’t you feel that if you reallywanted topublicize these “positionpapers” that itwouldonlytakeascratchofthepenbyMr.Donovan?Franklin:No,Idon’t,andIwilltellyouwhy.HedleyDonovanisnotonlyamemberoftheCommission,butheisoneofmyclosepersonalfriends.HedleyDonovanisalsoapersonofgreatintegrity.Hewillnotpublishanythingwedobecauseheisconnectedwithit.HelooksoutfortheinterestofTime,andhedoesnotfeelwewereworthTimepublicity,andIamsurehewillbeexactlythesamewayintheWhiteHouse.HeisgoingtobeloyaltohisPresidentandtohisjob.Wood:ButTimeMagazineisthelargestnewsmagazineinthecountry?Franklin:Right.Weonlyhadalittlepublicity,butwehadonlywhatHedleywouldhavegiven,whetherornothewasamemberoftheCommission.Wood:So,hebasicallythinksthattheCommissionreallydoesnotmatter.Franklin:No.Hedoesnot,orhewouldnotbeamemberof theCommissionatall.TimeMagazinedoes

giveussomemoney,notverymuch,but$2,500ayeartobeexact.But,hiseditorialjudgmentisnotbiasedbythefactthatheisamemberoftheCommission.Commentator:Mr.Rees,wouldyouliketoaskaquestion?Rees: Yes, Mr. Franklin, I noticed that you were saying that the Trilateral Commission takes noresponsibilityfortheuseofthepublisher’simprimatur,butIwouldbeinterestedtoknowabouthowyougoaboutselectingyourwriterstoputoutthevariouspositions.Franklin:Well that is a very interesting question.We have a meeting with the chairmen. The way thesituationisorganizedisthis.Therearethreechairmen,onefromeachofthethreeareas.Threesecretaries,onefromeachof the threeareas,andIhavegotan intermediatestaff jobcalled“coordinator.”Now, thechairmenandsecretariesmeetwithwhattheyhavejointly,willdiscussnotonlytopicstheythinkwillbeuseful tohave,butalsoauthorsfor these topics.Thetopicsare thendiscussedby thewholeCommissionandapprovedorchangedslightly.Theauthorsarechosenbymembersofthestaffandconsultationwiththechairmen.Rees: So, although you do not take responsibility for the finished product you are responsible for theselectionofthewriters.Franklin:Verymuch.Noquestionaboutthat.Rees:Soitdoeshaveyourimprimaturstampofapprovaleachtime?Franklin:Inthatsense.Wecertainlychoosethewriters,andwechoosethembecausewethinktheyareverygood,obviously.Sofar,everysinglereportthathasbeenwrittenbytheauthorshas,infact,beenacceptedforpublicationbytheCommission.Rees:Thenthereportonthenewsmediawasaccepted?Franklin:Itwasaccepted,buttherewasalotofdisagreementwiththat.Itwasfeltthatitwasanimportantstatement,withquite a lotof interestingnew ideas in it. Itwasalsoavery strongoppositionwhichwasreflectedinthebackofthereportinasection,Ithinkitisentitled,“SummaryofDiscussion.”Commentator:Mr.Sutton,doyouhaveanyotherquestions?Sutton: I have onemore question, that goes to a new field entirely: taxation.We have established thatDavidRockefellerischairmanandthesinglemostpowerfulinfluenceinChaseManhattanBank.Now,doyouhappentoknowthetaxratethatChaseManhattanpaysintheUnitedStates?Franklin:Idon’tknow...happentoknow--itisabout50%[fiftypercent].Sutton:Iwillgiveyousomefigures.In1976,ChaseManhattanBank’s taxratewaspreciselyzero.Iamwonderingwhy,ifyouaresoinfluentialpolitically,whyatleastyoucannotpayataxratemoreequivalenttothatoftheaverageAmericanTaxpayer,whichis15%or20%or30%?Franklin:IhavenothingtodowithChaseManhattanBank.Butifthetaxratewaszero,itmusthavebeenbecauseithadverylargerealestatelossesinthatyear,Ithink.Sutton:In1975,itwas3.4%.Itisalwayswayunder10%.Franklin:Well,thatisextremelyinteresting.Itisanewfactforme.Sutton:Well,mypointisthis,thatyouarewillingtoguidetheUnitedStatesintothefuture,butapparentlyyouarenotwillingtopayyourfairshareofthecosts.Commentator:YouaretalkingabouttheCommissionmembersasawhole?Sutton:Yes.Franklin:IthinkyouwillfindthattheCommissionmemberspaywhateverthelawssaystheyaresupposedto payunder the circumstances. I do not knowwhat the particular reasonwas onChase.Theydid haveheavylosses.Iamnotfamiliarenoughwiththeirsituationtobeabletotellittoyou.

Wood:MayIaskanotherquestionalongthatsameline,please?Commentator:Goahead.Wood: In that sameyear,1976, it is recorded that some78%ofChaseManhattan’searningscame fromInternationaloperations.Thatleaves22%fromtheU.S...Don’tyouthinkperhapsthismightbeaconflictofinterest,betweenchoosingtheirinternationalpolicyversustheirdomesticpolicyintheUnitedStates?Franklin:Well,Ithinkthatistrueofmostofthemajorbanks.Now,thatdoesnotansweryourquestion,Irecognize.Wood:Wherewould their loyalty lie?Ifononehandtheyare tryingto lookoutforAmerica,yeton theotherhandtheyaretryingtolookoutfortheirbreadandbutter,whichisnotAmerica.Franklin:First,inthelongrun,Ithinkanyofourmajorcorporationsmustrecognize,thatunlesstheUnitedStatesdoeswell, theyaregoing tobe in thesoup.Secondly, someof thesepeople,youmayormaynotbelieve it, have enough integrity, they can divorce their interest, like Hedley Donovan could, on thequestionofpublicityontheTrilateralCommission.Commentator:Gentlemen,Ithinkwearerunningoutoftimehere.Ithinkwehavereachedtheendoftheinterview.Wewould like to thank you,Mr. Franklin,Mr.Wood, andMr. Sutton. Thank you for beingguestsonourshow.

APPENDIXIII

THEEARTHCHARTER

PreambleWestandatacriticalmomentinEarth’shistory,atimewhenhumanitymust

chooseitsfuture.Astheworldbecomesincreasinglyinterdependentandfragile,thefutureatonceholdsgreatperilandgreatpromise.TomoveforwardwemustrecognizethatinthemidstofamagnificentdiversityofculturesandlifeformsweareonehumanfamilyandoneEarthcommunitywithacommondestiny.Wemustjointogethertobringforthasustainableglobalsocietyfoundedonrespectfor nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare ourresponsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to futuregenerations.Earth,OurHomeHumanityispartofavastevolvinguniverse.Earth,ourhome,isalivewitha

uniquecommunityoflife.Theforcesofnaturemakeexistenceademandinganduncertain adventure, but Earth has provided the conditions essential to life’sevolution. The resilience of the community of life and the well-being ofhumanity depend upon preserving a healthy biosphere with all its ecologicalsystems,arichvarietyofplantsandanimals,fertilesoils,purewaters,andcleanair.Theglobalenvironmentwithitsfiniteresourcesisacommonconcernofallpeoples.TheprotectionofEarth’svitality,diversity,andbeautyisasacredtrust.

TheGlobalSituationThe dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing

environmentaldevastation,thedepletionofresources,andamassiveextinctionofspecies.Communitiesarebeingundermined.Thebenefitsofdevelopmentarenot sharedequitablyand thegapbetween richandpoor iswidening. Injustice,poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict arewidespread and the cause of greatsuffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdenedecologicalandsocialsystems.Thefoundationsofglobalsecurityarethreatened.Thesetrendsareperilous—butnotinevitable.

TheChallengesAheadThechoiceisours:formaglobalpartnershiptocareforEarthandoneanother

or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. Fundamentalchanges are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living. We mustrealize thatwhenbasicneedshavebeenmet, humandevelopment isprimarilyaboutbeingmore,nothavingmore.Wehavetheknowledgeandtechnologytoprovideforallandtoreduceourimpactsontheenvironment.Theemergenceofa global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic andhumane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritualchallengesareinterconnected,andtogetherwecanforgeinclusivesolutions.

UniversalResponsibilityTorealizetheseaspirations,wemustdecidetolivewithasenseofuniversal

responsibility,identifyingourselveswiththewholeEarthcommunityaswellasour localcommunities.Weareatoncecitizensofdifferentnationsandofoneworld inwhich the local andglobal are linked.Everyone shares responsibilityforthepresentandfuturewell-beingof thehumanfamilyandthelarger livingworld. The spirit of human solidarity and kinshipwith all life is strengthenedwhenwe livewith reverence for themysteryofbeing,gratitude for thegiftoflife,andhumilityregardingthehumanplaceinnature.We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical

foundationfor theemergingworldcommunity.Therefore, together inhopeweaffirmthefollowinginterdependentprinciplesforasustainablewayoflifeasacommon standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations,businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided andassessed.

PRINCIPLESI.RESPECTANDCAREFORTHECOMMUNITYOFLIFE

1.RespectEarthandlifeinallitsdiversity.a.Recognizethatallbeingsareinterdependentandeveryformoflifehasvalue

regardlessofitsworthtohumanbeings.b.Affirmfaithintheinherentdignityofallhumanbeingsandintheintellectual,

artistic,ethical,andspiritualpotentialofhumanity.

2.Careforthecommunityoflifewithunderstanding,compassion,andlove.a.Accept thatwith the right toown,manage,andusenatural resourcescomes

thedutytopreventenvironmentalharmandtoprotecttherightsofpeople.b.Affirmthatwith increasedfreedom,knowledge,andpowercomesincreased

responsibilitytopromotethecommongood.

3. Build democratic societies that are just, participatory, sustainable, andpeaceful.

a.Ensurethatcommunitiesatalllevelsguaranteehumanrightsandfundamentalfreedoms and provide everyone an opportunity to realize his or her fullpotential.

b. Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure andmeaningfullivelihoodthatisecologicallyresponsible.

4.SecureEarth’sbountyandbeautyforpresentandfuturegenerations.a.Recognize that the freedomof action of each generation is qualified by the

needsoffuturegenerations.b.Transmittofuturegenerationsvalues,traditions,andinstitutionsthatsupport

thelong-termflourishingofEarth’shumanandecologicalcommunities.Inordertofulfillthesefourbroadcommitments,itisnecessaryto:II.ECOLOGICALINTEGRITY

5. Protect and restore the integrity of Earth’s ecological systems, withspecial concern for biological diversity and the natural processes thatsustainlife.

a.Adoptat all levels sustainabledevelopmentplansand regulations thatmakeenvironmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all developmentinitiatives.

b.Establishandsafeguardviablenatureandbiospherereserves, includingwildlands and marine areas, to protect Earth’s life support systems, maintainbiodiversity,andpreserveournaturalheritage.

c.Promotetherecoveryofendangeredspeciesandecosystems.d.Control anderadicatenon-nativeorgeneticallymodifiedorganismsharmful

to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of suchharmfulorganisms.

e.Manage the use of renewable resources such aswater, soil, forest products,andmarine life inways that do not exceed rates of regeneration and thatprotectthehealthofecosystems.

f.Manage the extractionanduseofnon-renewable resources suchasmineralsand fossil fuels in ways that minimize depletion and cause no seriousenvironmentaldamage.

6.Preventharmasthebestmethodofenvironmentalprotectionand,whenknowledgeislimited,applyaprecautionaryapproach.

a.Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmentalharmevenwhenscientificknowledgeisincompleteorinconclusive.

b.Placetheburdenofproofonthosewhoarguethataproposedactivitywillnotcause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable forenvironmentalharm.

c. Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect,longdistance,andglobalconsequencesofhumanactivities.

d. Prevent pollution of any part of the environment and allow no build-up of

radioactive,toxic,orotherhazardoussubstances.e.Avoidmilitaryactivitiesdamagingtotheenvironment.

7. Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction thatsafeguardEarth’sregenerativecapacities,humanrights,andcommunitywell-being.

a.Reduce,reuse,andrecyclethematerialsusedinproductionandconsumptionsystems, and ensure that residual waste can be assimilated by ecologicalsystems.

b.Actwithrestraintandefficiencywhenusingenergy,andrelyincreasinglyonrenewableenergysourcessuchassolarandwind.

c.Promotethedevelopment,adoption,andequitabletransferofenvironmentallysoundtechnologies.

d.Internalizethefullenvironmentalandsocialcostsofgoodsandservicesintheselling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet thehighestsocialandenvironmentalstandards.

e. Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health andresponsiblereproduction.

f.Adoptlifestylesthatemphasizethequalityoflifeandmaterialsufficiencyinafiniteworld.

8. Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the openexchangeandwideapplicationoftheknowledgeacquired.

a. Support international scientific and technical cooperation on sustainability,withspecialattentiontotheneedsofdevelopingnations.

b.Recognizeandpreservethetraditionalknowledgeandspiritualwisdominallculturesthatcontributetoenvironmentalprotectionandhumanwell-being.

c. Ensure that information of vital importance to human health andenvironmental protection, including genetic information, remains availableinthepublicdomain.

III.SOCIALANDECONOMICJUSTICE

9.Eradicatepovertyasanethical,social,andenvironmentalimperative.a.Guaranteetherighttopotablewater,cleanair,foodsecurity,uncontaminated

soil, shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the national and internationalresourcesrequired.

b. Empower every human beingwith the education and resources to secure asustainablelivelihood,andprovidesocialsecurityandsafetynetsforthose

whoareunabletosupportthemselves.c. Recognize the ignored, protect the vulnerable, serve those who suffer, and

enablethemtodeveloptheircapacitiesandtopursuetheiraspirations.

10. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promotehumandevelopmentinanequitableandsustainablemanner.

a. Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and amongnations.

b. Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources ofdevelopingnations,andrelievethemofonerousinternationaldebt.

c. Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmentalprotection,andprogressivelaborstandards.

d.Requiremultinationalcorporationsandinternationalfinancialorganizationstoact transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for theconsequencesoftheiractivities.

11. Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainabledevelopment and ensure universal access to education, health care, andeconomicopportunity.

a.Securethehumanrightsofwomenandgirlsandendallviolenceagainstthem.b. Promote the active participation of women in all aspects of economic,

political, civil, social, and cultural life as full and equal partners, decisionmakers,leaders,andbeneficiaries.

c. Strengthen families and ensure the safety and loving nurture of all familymembers.

12.Uphold therightofall,withoutdiscrimination, toanaturalandsocialenvironment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritualwell-being,withspecialattentiontotherightsof indigenouspeoplesandminorities.

a.Eliminatediscriminationinallitsforms,suchasthatbasedonrace,color,sex,sexualorientation,religion,language,andnational,ethnicorsocialorigin.

b.Affirmtherightofindigenouspeoplestotheirspirituality,knowledge,landsandresourcesandtotheirrelatedpracticeofsustainablelivelihoods.

c.Honor and support the young people of our communities, enabling them tofulfilltheiressentialroleincreatingsustainablesocieties.

d.Protectandrestoreoutstandingplacesofculturalandspiritualsignificance.IV.DEMOCRACY,NONVIOLENCE,ANDPEACE

13. Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and providetransparencyandaccountabilityingovernance,inclusiveparticipationindecisionmaking,andaccesstojustice.

a. Uphold the right of everyone to receive clear and timely information onenvironmentalmatters and all development plans and activitieswhich arelikelytoaffectthemorinwhichtheyhaveaninterest.

b.Support local, regionalandglobalcivilsociety,andpromote themeaningfulparticipation of all interested individuals and organizations in decisionmaking.

c. Protect the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly,association,anddissent.

d. Institute effective and efficient access to administrative and independentjudicialprocedures,includingremediesandredressforenvironmentalharmandthethreatofsuchharm.

e.Eliminatecorruptioninallpublicandprivateinstitutions.f.Strengthen local communities, enabling them tocare for their environments,

andassignenvironmentalresponsibilitiestothelevelsofgovernmentwheretheycanbecarriedoutmosteffectively.

14. Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge,values,andskillsneededforasustainablewayoflife.

a.Provideall,especiallychildrenandyouth,witheducationalopportunitiesthatempowerthemtocontributeactivelytosustainabledevelopment.

b.Promotethecontributionoftheartsandhumanitiesaswellasthesciencesinsustainabilityeducation.

c. Enhance the role of themassmedia in raising awareness of ecological andsocialchallenges.

d. Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for sustainableliving.

15.Treatalllivingbeingswithrespectandconsideration.a. Prevent cruelty to animals kept in human societies and protect them from

suffering.b.Protectwildanimalsfrommethodsofhunting,trapping,andfishingthatcause

extreme,prolonged,oravoidablesuffering.c.Avoidoreliminatetothefullextentpossiblethetakingordestructionofnon-

targetedspecies.

16.Promoteacultureoftolerance,nonviolence,andpeace.a. Encourage and support mutual understanding, solidarity, and cooperation

amongallpeoplesandwithinandamongnations.b. Implement comprehensive strategies to prevent violent conflict and use

collaborative problem solving to manage and resolve environmentalconflictsandotherdisputes.

c. Demilitarize national security systems to the level of a non-provocativedefense posture, and convert military resources to peaceful purposes,includingecologicalrestoration.

d.Eliminatenuclear,biological,andtoxicweaponsandotherweaponsofmassdestruction.

e. Ensure that the use of orbital and outer space supports environmentalprotectionandpeace.

f. Recognize that peace is the wholeness created by right relationships withoneself,otherpersons,othercultures,otherlife,Earth,andthelargerwholeofwhichallareapart.

THEWAYFORWARD

As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a newbeginning. Such renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter principles. Tofulfillthispromise,wemustcommitourselvestoadoptandpromotethevaluesandobjectivesoftheCharter.This requires a change ofmind and heart. It requires a new sense of global

interdependence and universal responsibility. We must imaginatively developandapplythevisionofasustainablewayof life locally,nationally,regionally,andglobally.Ourculturaldiversityisapreciousheritageanddifferentcultureswill find theirowndistinctiveways to realize thevision.WemustdeepenandexpandtheglobaldialoguethatgeneratedtheEarthCharter,forwehavemuchtolearnfromtheongoingcollaborativesearchfortruthandwisdom.Lifeofteninvolvestensionsbetweenimportantvalues.Thiscanmeandifficult

choices. However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, theexercise of freedomwith the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vitalrole to play. The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media,businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called tooffer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, andbusinessisessentialforeffectivegovernance.

In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the worldmust renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligationsunderexistinginternationalagreements,andsupporttheimplementationofEarthCharter principles with an international legally binding instrument onenvironmentanddevelopment.Letoursbeatimerememberedfortheawakeningofanewreverenceforlife,

the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle forjusticeandpeace,andthejoyfulcelebrationoflife.Attribution:TheEarthCharterispublishedbywww.EarthCharter.organdwasplacedintothepublicdomain,withoutcopyrighttofacilitatebroaddistribution.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PrimaryAkin,WilliamE.,TechnocracyandtheAmericanDream:TheTechnocratMovement1900-1941,ed.(Berkeley[u.a.],1977).Moller,Dr.Paul,2006.HolismandEvolution,CollegeofEuropeanandRegionalStudies.Technocracy,Inc.,TechnocracyStudyCourse(1934).Adair,David,‘TheTechnocrats1919-1967:ACaseStudyofConflictandChangeinaSocialMovement’,(Vancouver,BC,1970).Technocracy:TechnologicalContinentalDesign.(Ferndale,WA,2001).Technocracy,TechnologicalSocialDesign.(Savannah,Ohio,1975).TotalConscription!YourQuestionsAnswered.(NewYork,N.Y.,1942).Hubbert,MarionKing,Man-HoursandDistribution(NewYork,N.Y.,1940).Scott,Howard,[fromoldcatalog],Technocracy.(NewYork,1935).Adamson,Martha,andRaymondI.Moore,Technocracy;SomeQuestionsAnswered.(NewYork,1934).Gernsback,Hugo,TechnocracyReview.(MountMorris,Ill.,1933).Technocracy,TheMagazineoftheNewDeal.(LosAngeles,Calif.).Ackerman,FrederickLee,TheFactsBehindTechnocracy(NewYorkCity,1933).Wilson,JohnMills,UnderstandingTechnocracy(SanDiego,Calif.,1933).Holder,WilliamJ.[fromoldcatalog],SimplifiedTechnocracy(SaltLakeCity,1933).Scott,Howard,Technocracy:ScienceVs.Chaos(Chicago,1933).Smalley,Jack.,TheTechnocrats’Magazine:ThirtyMillionOutofWorkin1933--or(Minneapolis,1933).Stabile,DonaldR.,VeblenandthePoliticalEconomyofTechnocracy:TheHeraldofTechnologicalRevolutionDevelopedanIdeologyof“scientific”Collectivism,ed.DonR.Stabile.y(In:TheAmericanJournalofEconomicsandSociology,Malden,Mass.:Wiley,1987).Davis,CharlesH.,TheAmericanTechnocracyMovement:ACaseStudyintheHistoryofEconomicThought,ed.CharlesH.Davis.y(1986).Stabile,Donald.,ProphetsofOrder:TheRiseoftheNewClass,TechnocracyandSocialisminAmerica,ed.Stabile.Donald(BostonMass.,1984).

Reed,JohnL.,TheNewestWhoreofBabylon.TheEmergenceofTechnocracy.AStudyoftheMechanizationofMan,ed.JohnL.Reed.y(Boston,1975).TechnocracyStudyCourse:AnOutlineofThoseElementsofScienceandTechnologyEssentialtoanUnderstandingofOurSocialMechanism.,ed.Inc.Technocracy(NewYork,NY,1940).Slocomb,WhitneyHart.,HowtoPutTechnocracyIntoPractice,ed.WhitneyH.Slocomb.y(LosAngeles,Calif,1933).Soule,George.,ACritiqueofTechnocracy’sFiveMainPoints,ed.Soule.George(In:ForandAgainstTechnocracy,NewYork:BusinessBourse,1933).Slocomb,WhitneyHart.,TheCausesandCureofThisDepression,or,HowtoPutTechnocracyIntoPractice,ed.WhitneyHartSlocomb.(LosAngeles,Calif.,1933).Rautenstrauch,Walter.,Technocracy’sViewsonTechnologicalDevelopmentandSocialChange,ed.Rautenstrauch.alter(In:ForandAgainstTechnocracy,NewYork:BusinessBourse,1933).Laing,GrahamAllan.,andCharlesAustinBeard,TowardsTechnocracy.(LosAngeles:TheAngelusPr.,1933).Elsner,Henry,MessianicScientismTechnocracy,1919-1960(xii,398leaves.,1963).Arkright,Frank.,TheABCofTechnocracy:BasedonAuthorizedMaterial(NewYorkandLondon,1933).TheTechnateofNorthAmerica:TheMinimumAreafortheMaximumDefenseandEfficiency.(NewYork,N.Y.,1941).AmericaMustShowtheWay(NewYork,1940).TheEnergyCertificate.(NewYork,1940).Scott,Howard.,TheEvolutionofStatesmanship&ScienceandSociety.(NewYork,1939).Technocracy:OfficialPublicationTechnocracy,Inc.(NewYork,N.Y.,1935).Cline,MarthaAdamsonandRaymondI.Moore,Technocracy:SomeQuestionsAnswered.(NewYork,1934).Zmavc,Ivan,TechnocracyandSociotechnicsDedicatedWiththeAuthor’sComplimentsBytheInstituteforTechnicalEconomyAtMasarykAcademyofWork.(Prague,1934).Chase,Stuart,TechnocracyanInterpretation.(vol.TheJohnDaypamphlets.no.19,NewYork,1933).

19,NewYork,1933).Brandon,Joseph,TechnocracyorDemocracyWhichShallGovernOurIndustries(Hollis,N.Y.,1933).Parrish,WayneW.,AnOutlineofTechnocracy(NewYork,1933).Scott,Howard,IntroductiontoTechnocracy(NewYork,1933).Smyth,WilliamHenry,TechnocracyExplainedByItsOriginator(Berkeley,Calif.,1933).Fisher,Irving,AWordAboutTechnocracy.(NewHaven,1933).Sachs,Hans,TechnocracyinEducationByHansSachs(SanFrancisco).Director,Aaron.,TheEconomiesofTechnocracy(Chicago,Ill.,1933).TheTechnocrat.(PismoBeach,Calif.,1935).Technocracy:TotalConscription:AVictoryProgram.(NewYork,N.Y.,1942).FlyingWingsforaContinentalOffensive(NewYork,N.Y.,1943).ContinentalPowerforContinentalDefense.(NewYork,N.Y.,1939).Porter,HenryAlfred,RooseveltandTechnocracy(LosAngeles,Calif.,1932).

SupportingB,R.,RootMerrill,E.,andTechnocracyLangan,Inc.,IAmthePriceSystemandtheCultureofAbundance(1945).Bucchi,Massimiano,BeyondTechnocracy:Science,Politics,andCitizens(Dordrecht,NewYork,2009).Crawford,PeterH.,Technocracy--anAmericanDogmafortheMachineAge.(135p.,1954).Genoud,Christophe.,MatthiasFinger,andMaartenArentsen,EnergyRegulation:ConvergenceThroughMutlilevelTechnocracy,ed.Genoudhristophe,MatthiasFingerandMaartenArentsen.(In:ReshapingEuropeanGasandElectricityIndustries,Amsterdam:Elsevier,2004).McDougall,WalterA.,TechnocracyandStatecraftintheSpaceAge.(In:TheGlobalHistoryReader,NewYork:Routledge,2005).Burris,BeverlyH.,TechnocracyAtWork,(SunySeries,theNewInequalities,Albany,1993).Putt,Archibald.,Putt’sLaw&theSuccessfulTechnocrat:HowtoWinintheInformationAge(Hoboken,N.J.,2006).Brown,WilliamGlenn.,TheDynamo&theTree:MyTwinsandIJourneyinginaTechnateintheYear1981(Hicksville,N.Y.,1977).Stabile,DonaldR.,VeblenandthePoliticalEconomyofTechnocracy:TheHeraldofTechnologicalRevolutionDevelopedanIdeologyof“scientific”Collectivism,ed.DonR.Stabile.y(In:TheAmericanJournalofEconomicsandSociology,Malden,Mass.:Wiley,1987).Davis,CharlesH.,TheAmericanTechnocracyMovement:ACaseStudyintheHistoryofEconomicThought,ed.CharlesH.Davis.y(1986).Fischer,Frank.,TechnocracyandthePoliticsofExpertise,ed.Fischer.rank(NewburyPark,Calif.[u.a.],1990).Day,RichardB.,RonaldBeiner,andJosephMasciulli,DemocraticTheoryandTechnologicalSociety,ed.byRichardB.Day.d.(Armonk,NY[u.a.],1988).Benard,Jean.,FromPoliticalBureaucracytoEconomicTechnocracy:ATransferofPropertyRightsinaSocialistEconomyUnderInverseTransition,eds.Jean,andBenard.(Vorträge,RedenUndBerichte//UniversitätDesSaarlandes,vol.7,Saarbrücken:Europa-Institut,1991).Freeman,JohnR.,CompetingCommitments:TechnocracyandDemocracyintheDesignofMonetaryInstitutions(In:InternationalOrganization,Cambridge,

theDesignofMonetaryInstitutions(In:InternationalOrganization,Cambridge,Mass.:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002).Sartori,Giovanni.,Market,Capitalism,PlanningandTechnocracy.(In:Markets,HierarchiesandNetworks,London:Sage,1998).Centeno,MiguelAngel,TheNewLeviathan:TheDynamicsandLimitsofTechnocracy,(In:TheoryandSociety,Dordrecht:Springer,1993).Ashcroft,David.,Technocracy:ADiscussion(In:SciencePolicyandSocialAspectsofScience,Mons,1979).Simmons,Harry.,SystemDynamicsandTechnocracy(In:Futures,Amsterdam:Elsevier,1973).Shils,EdwardA.,TheSocialControlofTechnocracy(In:CanWeSurviveOurFuture,London[u.a.]:St.Martin`sPr.,1972).Scott,Howard.,Technocracy’sAnswer(In:Bingham:AlfredMitchell,Freeport,N.Y:BooksforLibrariesPress,1971).Bell,Daniel.,ThePost-IndustrialSociety:TechnocracyandPolitics(In:TransactionsoftheWorldCongressofSociology,WechselndeVerlagsorte,1970).Back,EdithB.,TechnocracyandtheEthicofSocialWork(In:TheSocialServiceReview,Chicago,Ill.:UnivofChicagoPress,1969).Meynaud,Jean.,andPaul.Barnes,Technocracy,TranslatedbyPaulBarnes.(SocietyTodayandTomorrow,London,1968).ThePoliticsandPhilosophyofTechnocracy,ed.GeorgeFrederick.(In:ForandAgainstTechnocracy,NewYork:BusinessBourse,1933).Money,Debt,andPriceUnderTechnocracy,ed.GeorgeFrederick.(In:ForandAgainstTechnocracy,NewYork:BusinessBourse,1933).AnExaminationIntoSomeofTechnocracy’sExamples,ed.GeorgeFrederick.(In:ForandAgainstTechnocracy,NewYork:BusinessBourse,1933).TheBackgroundofTechnocracy,ed.GeorgeFrederick.(In:ForandAgainstTechnocracy,NewYork:BusinessBourse,1933).Frederick,Christine.,ThePsychologyofWomenUnderTechnocracy,ed.Frederick.Christine(In:ForandAgainstTechnocracy,NewYork:BusinessBourse,1933).Doane,RobertR.,TechnocracyandtheMaturityoftheChances(In:ForandAgainstTechnocracy,NewYork:BusinessBourse,1933).Deventer,JohnH.van.,TheWeaknessintheTechnocracyCase(In:Forand

Deventer,JohnH.van.,TheWeaknessintheTechnocracyCase(In:ForandAgainstTechnocracy,NewYork:BusinessBourse,1933).Compton,KarlTaylor.,Technology’sAnswertoTechnocracy,(In:ForandAgainstTechnocracy,NewYork:BusinessBourse,1933).Frederick,JustusGeorge.,WhatAreTechnocracy’sAssertions(In:ForandAgainstTechnocracy,NewYork:BusinessBourse,1933).Holcomb,Hillman.,ChristianTechnocracy.(Oakland,Calif.,1962).Holcomb,Hillman.,GentilesIncorporatedorInternationalforTechnocracy(Oakland,Calif.,1961).PamphletsonTechnocracy.(NewYork,etc.,1932).AContinentalHydrology:AContinentalDesignforFloodandErosionControl,andWaterforPower,Irrigation,Transportation,RecreationandClimaticModification(Rushland,PA,1970).Technocracy,aNewChallengetoLaborandEducation:Addresstothe52ndConventionoftheAmericanFederationofLabor,Cincinnati,Ohio,Nov.23,1932.(1932).Murray,AlanRobert.,andJohnRodgers.King,TheFactsAboutTechnocracy(LosAngeles,1932).Cromie,RobertJames,TechnocracyFromtheViewpointofanEditor(Girard,Kan.,1933).TotalConscription.(NewYork,N.Y.,1943).PowerforaContinent.(NewYork,N.Y.,1947).Continentalism:TheMandateofSurvival,(NewYork,1947).AContinentalHydrology,(Rushland,Pa.,1956).Alchon,Guy,TechnocraticSocialScienceandtheRiseofManagedCapitalism,1910-1933(ii,280leaves,1985).Technocracy:TechnologicalSocialDesign,(Savannah,Ohio,1976).Carleton,G.,TechnologyandHumanism;SomeExploratoryEssaysforOurTime(Nashville,1970).TechnocracyDigest,(Vancouver,1934).TheNorthwestTechnocrat,(Seattle,1939).TechnocracyinPlainTerms:AChallengeandaWarning,(NewYork,N.Y.,1939).Anderson,Stuart.,TechnocracyPasses,(1933).TheNorthAmericanTechnocrat.(Ferndale,WA,2002).

TheNorthAmericanTechnocrat.(Ferndale,WA,2002).Frederick,J.George,ForandAgainstTechnocracy,aSymposium,(NewYork,1933).TechnocraticTrendevents.(LongBeach,Calif.,1950).Bryson,DennisRaymond.,LawrenceK.Frank:ArchitectofChildDevelopment,ProphetofBio-Technocracy/ByDennisRaymondBryson.(2v.(v,575leaves),1993).Elsner,Henry.,TheTechnocrats;ProphetsofAutomation.([Syracuse,N.Y.],1967).Wilson,J.M.,Tomorrow(SanDiego,1932).Blanshard,Paul,TechnocracyandSocialism(NewYork,1933).Darcy,Sam.,andLincolnSteffens,AMarxistExposureoftheFallacyofTechnocracy(SanFrancisco,1930).Mayers,Henry,TheWhat,Why,Who,When,andHowofTechnocracy;AmazingRevelationsofForemostU.S.EngineersandEconomistsConcerningOurPastProsperity,PresentDepressionandFutureFreedom.(LosAngeles,Calif.,1932).

InternationalAndreas,Joel.,RiseoftheRedEngineers:TheCulturalRevolutionandtheOriginsofChina’sNewClass(Stanford,Calif.,2009).Silva,Patricio.,IntheNameofReason:TechnocratsandPoliticsinChile(UniversityPark,Pa.,2008).Elena,Eduardo.,ThePromiseofPlanning:TechnocracyandPopulismintheMakingofPeronistArgentina(In:FascismoYAntifascismo,PeronismoYAntiperonismo,Madrid:Iberoamericana,2006).Shiraishi,Takashi,TechnocracyinIndonesia:APreliminaryAnalysis(RieitDiscussionPaperSeries,vol.06,008,Tokyo).Shiraishi,Takashi.,andP.N.Abinales,AftertheCrisis:Hegemony,TechnocracyandGovernanceinSoutheastAsia(vol.KyotoareastudiesonAsia,v.11,KyotoMelbourne,Vic.,2005).Mizuno,Hiromi,SciencefortheEmpire:ScientificNationalisminModernJapan(Stanford,Calif.,2009).Radaelli,ClaudioM.,TechnocracyintheEuropeanUnion(PoliticalDynamicsoftheEuSeries,London[u.a.],2008).Bell,Stephen,TheNewTechnocracy:MonetaryGovernanceandtheReserveBankofAustralia(In:EconomicGovernance&InstitutionalDynamics,SouthMelbourne,Victoria[u.a.]:OxfordUniv.Press,2002).Björkman,JamesWarner,andKuldeepMathur,Policy,TechnocracyandDevelopment:HumanCapitalPoliciesintheNetherlandsandIndia(NewDelhi,2002).Silva,Patricio,StudyingTechnocracyinChile:WhatCanbeLearnedFromtheMexicanCase?(1996).Dijkstra,A.Geske,TechnocracyQuestioned:AssessingEconomicStabilisationinNicaragua(1999).Shapiro,MartinM.,Deliberative,IndependentTechnocracyV.DemocraticPolitics:WilltheGlobeEchotheE.U.(NewYork,NY,2004).Andersen,SveinS.,andTomR.Burns,SocietalDecision-Making:DemocraticChallengestoStateTechnocracy:ConfrontationsOverNuclear,Hydro-PowerandPetroleumProjectsinNorway(Aldershot;Brookfield,USA,1992).Rowney,DonKarl.,TransitiontoTechnocracy:TheStructuralOriginsoftheSovietAdministrativeState(StudiesinSovietHistoryandSociety,Ithaca,NY,1989).

1989).Sicat,GerardoP.,NationalEconomicManagementandTechnocracyinDevelopingCountries,ed.GerardoP.Sicat.y(In:EconomicPolicyandDevelopment,Dover,Mass.:AuburnHouse,1985).Andrade,LuisA.de,TechnocracyandDevelopment:TheCaseofMinasGerais(1980).de,Moraes,MarthaPimenta.,TheControlsofTechnocracy:SeminaronTechnocracyandItsControlsinDevelopingCountries(August1978).Dubsky,Roman.,SocialDevelopment,SocialPolicy,andTechnocracy:ThePhillippineExperience(In:PhilippineJournalofPublicAdministration,Manila,1981).Mai,Manfred.,OntheRelevanceoftheTechnocracyDebate:AnEssayontheRelationshipBetweenTechnologyandDemocracy.(In:GovernanceandLegitimacyinaGlobalizedWorld,Baden-Baden:Nomos,2008).Quick,StephenA.,HumanismorTechnocracy?Zambia’sFarmingCo-Operatives1965-1972.ByStephena.Quick,(ZambianPapers,vol.No.12,Manchester,1978).Moreira,Alves,Marcio.,ThePoliticalEconomyoftheBrazilianTechnocracy,ed.MoreiraAlves.Marcio(In:BerkeleyJournalofSociology,Berkeley,Calif.,1974).Mallet,Serge.,BureaucracyandTechnocracyintheSocialistCountries(EuropeanSocialistThought,vol.1,Nottingham,1974).Dimock,MarshallEdward,TheJapaneseTechnocracy:ManagementandGovernmentinJapan(NewYork,1968).Krämer,Erich.,WasIstTechnokratie(Berlin,1933).Coston,Henry.,LesTechnocratesEtLaSynarchie([Paris],1962).Andrade,LuisAurelianoGamade.,TechnocracyandDevelopmenttheCaseofMinasGerais(xiii,311leaves.,1980).Apter,DavidErnest,RoundTableonTechnocracyandItsControls:WithSpecialReferencetoDevelopingCountries:RioDeJaneiro25-27August,1978.([S.l.],1979).Martins,CarlosEstevam,TecnocraciaECapitalismo:APolíticaDosTécnicosNoBrasil(SãoPaulo,1974).Malorny,Hans,Technokratie(Würzburg,1937).Druesne,Maurice.,LesProblèmesÉconomiquesEtLaTechnocratie(Paris,

Druesne,Maurice.,LesProblèmesÉconomiquesEtLaTechnocratie(Paris,1933).Carrillo,Alejandro.,LaTecnocracia;BosquejoDeUnaNuevaTeoríaEconómico-Social.([México?],1934).Baylis,ThomasA.,TheTechnicalIntelligentsiaandtheEastGermanElite;LegitimacyandSocialChangeinMatureCommunism(Berkeley,1974).Doorn,JacobusAdrianusAntoniusvan,TheEngineersandtheColonialSystemTechnocraticTendenciesintheDutchEastIndies(Rotterdam,1982).Bakken,,TheExemplarySociety:HumanImprovement,SocialControl,andtheDangersofModernityinChina(Oxford[England]NewYork,2000).Bauchard,Philippe,LesTechnocratesEtLePouvoir,X-Crise,Synarchie,C.G.T.,Clubs(Paris,1966).Ascher,WilliamLouis,Planners,PoliticsandTechnocracyinArgentine[Sic]andChile([NewHaven],1997).Centeno,MiguelAngel,TheNewCientificos:TechnocraticPoliticsinMexico1970-1990(2v.(iv,513leaves),1990).Brun,Gérard,TechnocratesEtTechnocratieEnFrance,1918-1945(Paris,1985).Silva,Patricio,StateCapacity,TechnocraticInsulation,andGovernment-BusinessRelationsinSouthKoreaandChile(vol.NuevaserieFLACSO.Relacionesinternacionalesymilitares,Santiago,Chile,2000).Dubsky,Roman.,TechnocracyandDevelopmentinthePhilippines(Diliman,QuezonCity,1993).

Websitelinks

TechnocracyRisingwww.TechnocracyRising.com

TheAugustForecastwww.AugustForecast.com

FreedomAdvocateswww.FreedomAdvocates.org

ThePostSustainabilityInstitutewww.PostSustainabilityInstitute.org

INDEX

AAffordableCareAct112Agenda21ix,xiv,1,10,30,44,80,84,85,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,96,97,101,108,109,110,123,125,

132,133,138,191,197,198,204Agriculture93–94Albright,Madeleine58Albright,MadeleineK.120AldousHuxleyxiii,126,180,207AlfredP.SloanFoundation120AllianceforRedesigningGovernment106Allison,Graham120AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion117AmericanHumanistAssociation181AmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009111Anderson,RobertO.119ArkofHope125Armacost,Michael58Askew,ReubinO’D.57AspenInstitute106,119–120,121,126AssociationofBayAreaGovernments198

BBabbitt,Bruce94Baird,Zoe120BankofNewYorkMellon161Barshefsky,Charlene57BattelleMemorialInstitute143,148Bellamy,Edward16Bernanke,Ben58BigData168–171Bilderberg48–49BillandMelindaGatesFoundation92Biotechnology183Blair,DennisC.172Blumenthal,Michael50,74Blumenthal,W.Michael74BohemianEngineer.SeeScott,HowardBonnevillePowerAdministration143Borgese,Giuseppe119Brademas,John120BRAINInitiative184–185

BritishHumanistAssociatio181Brock,WilliamE.III57BrundtlandCommission87,133Brundtland,GroHarlem87,133Brzezinski,Zbigniew40–41,51–53,63Buchanan,Patrick66Buford,Bob216BureauofLandManagement100,137Burns,Arthur58Bush,GeorgeH.W.48,56,60,63,65,172Butler,NicholasMurray23

CCaliforniaAssociationofCouncilsofGovernment198Canada-U.S.FreeTradeAgreement62CarbonCurrency156–164CarnegieFoundation120Carnegie-Mellon70Carter,Jimmy45,48,50,51,53,56,65,75,88,190,201,229CCSS.SeeCommonCoreStateStandardsCentralIntelligenceAgency165ChaseManhattanBank48,55,82,119,229,234–236,242Cheney,Dick56,172Chichilnisky,Graciela162China28,51,52,54,150,151,201,202,204,205,262,264Christopher,Warren58Church,Frank173Clausen,A.W.57Clinton,Bill56,64,75ClubofRome124,159CognitiveScience183,184COGS.SeeCouncilsofGovernmentsColeman,WilliamT.Jr.120Colombo,Umberto120ColumbiaUniversity3,9,22,23,24,25,26,36,40–41,48,51,124,204CommitteeonTechnocracy23CommonCore.SeeCommonCoreStateStandardsCommonCoreStateStandards92,108–114Communitarianism10,209,213,214,215Comte,Auguste4,11InfluenceonTechnocracy15Conable,Barber57Congress,Irrelevanceof54ConventiononBiologicalDiversity85Convergence.SeeConvergingTechnologiesConvergingTechnologies183–185Cooper,Richard58,120

CouncilofChiefStateSchoolOfficers111CounciloftheAmericas,The62CouncilonForeignRelations48,49,59,60,71,119,205CouncilsofGovernments89

DDamremoval94Darwinism11,13,20Datafusion174DavidandLucilePackardFoundation120DecadeofEducationforSustainableDevelopment126DepartmentofHomelandSecurity104,165,170,174,176d’Estaing,ValeryGiscard60Deutch,John120DirectorofNationalIntelligence,Officeofthe170–172DiscourseTheory130,136Dobson,WendyK.59,70Donovan,Hedley49,229,240,241,243Driscoll,Mark213DruckerInstituteatClaremontCollege216Drucker,Peter214

EEagleburger,Lawrence58EarthCharter85,122–128,245,253–254EarthCharterGuidebookforTeachers126EarthCharterInternationalCouncil124Eisenhower,DwightD.173EnergyCertificate32,156,158,159,163EnergyDistributionCard162.SeealsoEnergyCertificateEntropy81EnvironmentalProtectionAgency133Eugenics20,101EuropeanUnion5,6,60,203,204,262ExecutiveBranchxiv,54,55,58,64,73,75,104,106,108,155,167,190,192ExtropyInstitute182

FFabianism14Fascismiii,xiii,13,39FastTrack.SeeTradePromotionAuthorityFederalBureauofInvestigation165Feder,Dr.Gottfried37

Feinstein,Dianne120FordFoundation70,106,119–120,122Ford,Gerald61FrameworkConventiononClimateChange88FreeTrade60,62,63,64,65,69,72,134Froman,Michael58Fuller,R.Buckminster151FunctionalSequence99–100FusionCenters173–175

GGant,Henry24Gardner,Richard43,51–52,63,204GATTUruguayRound62GeneralSystemTheory215GeorgeOrwell207GermanTechnocraticSociety38Germany21,28,33,34,36,37,38,39,40,150,201,205,206GlobalBiodiversityAssessment85,93GlobalEnergyNetworkInstitute151GlobalForumonReinventingGovernment,The103GoldmanSachs163Goldwater,Barry55Gorbachev,Mikhail123,124Gore,Albert56,65GreenCrossInternational124GreenEconomyasdefinedbyUNEP78currencyof156Decouplingresources79examplesof91–95GreenFaith127Greenspan,Alan58GulfOilCorporation54

HHaass,Richard59,70,120Habib,Philip58Haig,Alexander58Heck,Charles47Hills,CarlaA.57,59,63,69,93,95Hitler,Adolf13,34,35,36–40,40,54,173,201,206Holism6–7Holon.SeeHolismHooverInstitutionforWar,PeaceandRevolution46

Hubbert,M.King15,23,25,26,28,29,30,31,32,35,78,81,96,99,100,101,108,141,156,157,158,159,161,163,165,255

HubbertPeakTheory159Hubbert’sPeak.SeePeakOilTheoryHumanGenomeProject181Humanism4,116,117,119,126,182,187,201,261,263HumanistManifestoI117HumanistManifestoII118HumanistManifestoIII118,119Huntington,Samuel74Hutchins,RobertM.119Huxley,Aldous126,180Huxley,Julian180Hybels,Bill218,219

IIBM55,106,144,168ICLEI10,198IEEEStandardsAssociation153–156InformationTechnology183Ingersol,RobertS.120InstitutionsforDefectives.SeeEugenicsIntelligenceReformandTerrorismPreventionActof2004170InterfaithSummitonClimateChange127InternetofThings145IPv6145,146Isaacson,Walter120

JJPMorganChase163

KKantor,Arnold58Kantor,Mickey57Kim,JimYong57Kirk,Ron58Kissinger,Henry58,63,66,120,201,236Klein,Mark166Knight,William33–35Kobayashi,Yotaro120Koestler,Arthur6Kurzweil,Ray181,185,186

KyotoProtocol85,162,163

LLarryKingShow47LeadershipNetwork216,217,219LeagueofNationsLibrary82Levin,GeraldM.120Lexmercatoria132LinowitzCommission74,75Linowitz,Sol74LocalAgenda2190LocalGovernmentsforSustainability.SeeICLEI

MMauriceStrong122,123,124McLaren,Brian212McNamara,Robert57,120Megachurch213,215,218MikhailGorbachev123,124Misprision196,197Mondale,Walter45,49,75Monti,Mario203Moore,GordonE.186Moore’sLaw186More,Max182Vita-More,Natasha182MorganStanley163

NNAFTA.SeeNorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreementNanotechnology183Napolitano,Janet174NationalGovernorsAssociation112NationalGovernorsAssociationCenter111NationalPerformanceReview88–89,101NationalScienceFoundation183NationalSecurityAgency165,166,169,191NationalSocialists37NaziSocialism38,39NBIC.SeeConvergingTechnologiesNegroponte,John172NetworkofEuropeanTechnocrats,The159

NetworkofThings145–148NewChristianity7,117NewInternationalEconomicOrder1,9,43,48,56,57,60,63,66,76,93,121,129,201NewSchool.SeeNewSchoolForSocialResearchNewSchoolForSocialResearch4,15,21.SeealsoVeblen,ThorsteinNewWorldOrderiii,xiii,2,32,48,

53,56,124,126.SeeNewInternationalEconomicOrderNIEO.SeeNewInternationalEconomicOrder

Nixon,Richard56,58,61,156,201NoChildLeftBehind108NorthAmericanAgreementonEnvironmentalCooperation134NorthAmericanCommissionforEnvironmentalCooperation134NorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreement60–76NorthAmericanUnion59,60,66,68,71,72,74Nye,Joseph120

OOfficeofElectricityDeliveryandEnergyReliability142OperationPaperclip39–40Orwell,George207OurCommonFuture87,88,89,123

PPacificNorthwestNationalLaboratory147Packard,David46Paepcke,Walter119Papademos,Lukas203Pastor,RobertA.59,68,69,70,71,72,74,75TrilateralCommissionOperative74–76PeakOilTheory30.SeealsoHubbert,M.KingPerot,Ross64–65PeterDrucker214,215,216,217,220Peterson,PeterG.74PewCharitableTrusts,106Populationcontrol95Porter,HarryA.26Portman,Rob58Positivism11.SeealsoComte,AugustePosthuman179,187President’sCouncilonSustainableDevelopment89–90Preston,Lewis57PrinciplesofScientificManagement20Progressivism12ProjectPrism165PropertyRights94Public-PrivatePartnerships91,106–107

R

Radio-FrequencyIDentification(RFID)145Rautenstrauch,Walter22,23,24,25,256ReflexiveLaw130–140ReinventingGovernment101Reorientingeducationtowardssustainabledevelopment110Rice,Condoleezza120Richardson,Elliot74RioDeclaration,The85Robinson,Mary88RockefellerBrothersFund86,120,124Rockefeller,David40–41,56,60,74RockefellerFoundation70,82,83,106,119,120Rockefeller,JohnD.41Rockefeller,NelsonA.56,61,62,65,86,124Rockefeller,StevenC.86,124,125RockefellerUniversity185Roosevelt,FranklinD.27Roth,William106Rubio,Luis59,70RuleofLawxiii,104,115,129,137,139,205

S

SaddlebackChurch218Saint-Simon,Henride4,117InfluenceonTechnocracy14SanPedroRiparianNationalConservationArea137SanPedroRiver,Arizona135Schwab,Susan58Scientificdictatorshipxiii,126,187,206,207ScientificManagement16.SeealsoTaylor,FrederickScientificMethod4,7,12,20,77,116,119Scientism3,8,12,13,115,116,180,187,201,202,209,212,257Scott,Howard15,21,22,24,25,27,33,35,37,68,141,151,161,203SecurityandProsperityPartnership71,72,73,75Seed,Dr.Richard187Self-regulation129Shultz,George58Shultz,GeorgeP.122Singularity185–188Slater,JosephE.119SmartGrid141–153SmartGrowth90Smuts,JanChristian6Smythe,W.H.2Snowden,Ed165

Socialismiii,xiii,13,14,33,38,39,256,262SouthwestCenterforBiologicalDiversity135,137Sovereignty,fictionof42SovietofTechnicians22StanfordUniversity46Steinmetz,Charles33–34Strauss,RobertS.57Strong,Maurice123SustainableAmerica90SustainableDevelopmentix,xiv,1,10,30,44,79,80,81,82,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,97,102,

108,112,119,123,126,132,133,138,156,181,191,193,197,204,214Sutton,AntonyC.2,45–47Sweeney,John106Swing,William121SystemsTheory130

TTalbot,Strobe120Taylor,Frederick16,20Taylorism16,20,21,36.SeealsoTaylor,FrederickTechnetronicEra9,40,41,42,43,54,214,231TechnicalAlliance22,33–34TechnocracyandtheThirdReich36Firstpublicuseof2Greekmeaning2inChina201–202intheEuropeanUnion203–204Philosophicalbackdropfor11Requirementsfor31,77Technocracy,Inc.21,25,26,27–39,68,81,99,101,109,143,151,158,159,162,255,257BannedinCanada35TechnocracyStudyCourse28–30,77,81,157Teubner,Gunther130Three-leggedstooldocrtine215TimeMagazine49,50,55,102,202,240,241Tonelson,Alan67TotalSurveillanceSociety165–178TradePromotionAuthority61–62Transcendence186Transhumanism3,8,13,118,179–188,209,211,212,221TranshumanManifesto182Trialogue(quarterlymagazine)48,52,53,226,239.SeealsoTrilateralCommissionTrilateralCommission

9–10,43–44,190,191Entrenchmentyears(1980-2007)56TrilateralObserverNewsletter46TrilateralsOverWashington(Sutton&Wood)2,9,46,47,51,239BlacklistedbyB.DaltonBooksellers47

Turner,Ted122Tzu,GeneralSun189

UUnitedNationsConventiontoCombatDesertification85UnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange85UnitedReligionsInitiative121–122UrbanRenewal91U.S.DepartmentofEnergy141,148U.S.TradeRepresentative57

VVance,Cyrus50,58,66Veblen,Thorstein15NewSchoolForSocialResearch15Volker,Paul58,120

WWarren,Rick213,218,219Wi-FiAlliance148WillowCreekAssociation218WithNoApologies(Goldwater,1979)55Wolfenson,James57Wolfowitz,Paul57WorldBank,The57WorldCouncilofChurches126,127WorldEconomicForum,The122,153Worldelectricgrid152WorldTradeOrganization63,129WorldWildlifeFund181WTO.SeeWorldTradeOrganization

YYeutter,ClaytonK.57

ZZakaria,Fareed120

Zedillo,Ernesto88Zoellick,Robert57,120Zuckerman,MortimerB.120

Foradditionalinformatonandupdateswww.TechnocracyRising.com