Author and researcher Derrick Broze absolutely nails Technocracy to the wall. This is Chapter 13 of his book, How to Opt-Out of the Technocratic State, and is accompanied by an excellent 34 documentary that explains every facet, from the 1930s through today. This is a must-read article and a must-view documentary. Please share widely.⁃ TN Editor
Up to this point we have focused our attention on the various individuals and institutions which make up The Pyramid of Power. As we near the top of the Pyramid and edge closer to the looming question, Who is on top of the Pyramid? we must first stop to examine the philosophy which appears to be guiding the actions of the inner circle.
Over the years, researchers of the ruling class have typically fallen into one of three categories: Those who believe the guiding philosophy is Communism, those who believe it is a fascist ideology driving the psychopaths at the top, and, finally, those who see the most danger coming from Nationalist authoritarians.
Now, it’s not hard to see why some would believe the threat is Communism, Fascism, or even Nationalism. History shows us the violence, betrayal, tyranny, murder, and starvation wrought by the Russian Bolshevik revolution, and other Communist revolutions inspired by the Bolsheviks. Also, we have seen the violence and death brought by Hitler’s Nazis and Mussolini’s Fascists. And history has also shown us that tyrants will use the cover of traditionalism and national identity to enforce their police state measures, as with the Franco dictatorship in Spain.
These historical events are all worthy of further inspection, and we will do so in an upcoming chapter, but for now it’s important to understand that while some researchers fall into this dichotomy of Communism vs Fascism, there are also those who believe this narrow focus misses the mark when it comes to the actual guiding philosophy of the Pyramid of Power.
If it’s not right-wing nationalism, or left-wing Communism we should fear, what is the actual philosophy that underpins the actions of the Ruling Class?
Understanding Historical Technocracy
For the rest of the excerpt, go to: https://www.technocracy.news/derrick-broze-exposes-the-technocratic-state-with-patrick-wood/
After six months of intermittent or in some cases near-continuous lockdowns, many have reached their limit and uprisings are finally emerging around the world. The last week of August 2020 saw gatherings of tens of thousands of individuals in Berlin,1 London2 and Dublin,3 protesting stay-at-home orders, business closures, mask and vaccine mandates and Bill Gates’ dictatorial grip on public health matters.
In the U.S., a protest took place August 30, 2020, in Boston, Massachusetts, against a new student flu vaccination mandate,4 and in Virginia, protesters gathered September 2 in opposition of unconstitutional COVID-19 mandates.5
These are just a few of the many demonstrations that have taken place in recent weeks around the world, as people are starting to realize their human rights are being stripped away over a virus with a lethality on par with that of seasonal influenza and other pandemic viruses, none of which was responded to with a global shutdown of economies and forced quarantining of healthy individuals.
COVID-19 — A Massive Brainwashing Scheme?
In recent weeks and months, more and more experts have come out sharing what they know about the roles of Big Tech, Big Pharma and global health organizations such as the World Health Organization in the creation of a new technocratic world order.
When you start to put all the puzzle pieces together, it seems clear this pandemic is being used as a cover story for both a global wealth redistribution scheme, and for the implementation of a technocratic system of totalitarian rule by unelected leaders. …
As reported by Reclaim the Net,6 the WHO eavesdrops on everything you do online, from reviewing your social media interactions to analyzing your emotions. To counteract “spread of misleading information” about the pandemic — which was a key area of focus during Event 201 — the WHO has partnered with an analytics company that uses machine learning analysis to scan more than 1.6 million social media posts per week.
The aim of this “social listening approach”— a nicer term than good old-fashioned spying — is to counteract anything that doesn’t align with the WHO’s current narrative on illnesses, treatments, interventions and causes of disease.
On top of that, most social media platforms have their own highly biased “fact-checkers” who censor for all they’re worth. Back in April 2020, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, wife of Google product director Dennis Troper, announced they would ban and remove any video from the platform that contradicts the WHO.7 ….
Just How Deadly Is COVID-19?
According to groundbreaking data8 recently released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 6% of the total COVID-19-related deaths in the U.S. had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death on the death certificate.
Six percent of 169,044 (the total death toll as of September 2) is 10,143. “For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death,” the CDC states. As reported by Rochester First,9 the top underlying medical conditions included influenza, pneumonia, respiratory failure, high blood pressure, diabetes, dementia, heart problems and renal failure.
However, the list also includes 5,424 intentional and unintentional injury and poisoning deaths, so basically, accidents and suicides in which the individual just happened to test positive (or was suspected of being positive for SARS-CoV-2) are also included in the grand total.
(Please note, these data were accurate as of this writing. The CDC does not notate when data is altered as new death certificates come in, so the numbers may therefore be different from what is reported here, depending on when you’re looking at it. For the most up-to-date figures, see the CDC’s website.10)
The fact that only 6% of COVID-19-related deaths are directly attributable to SARS-CoV-2 is bad news when you’re trying to keep a doomsday narrative going. In what appears to be a blatant attempt to minimize exposure of these data, social media platforms have censored many trying to share it.11
As noted by independent news commentator Tim Pool in the video below, fact-checkers are digging into nitpicky semantics in their effort to censor the CDC data, and in so doing, they’re really stretching the “false” claim ultrathin.
Similar data have emerged from Palm Beach County, Florida, where an investigation by CBS 1212 I-Team revealed only 86 of the reported 658 COVID-19 deaths had “COVID-19 pneumonia” listed as the sole cause of death.
All others had multiple comorbidities,. …
Infection Fatality Rate on Par With the Flu
Keeping the “killer virus” narrative going much longer is probably going to become even more difficult in light of a September 2, 2020 article13 in Annals of Internal Medicine, which points out that:
“Because many cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are asymptomatic, generalizable data on the true number of persons infected are lacking, and that when calculating mortality rates from confirmed cases, you end up overestimating the infection fatality ratio (IFR).”
The paper reads, in part:14
(Go to link to read excerpt)
The estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza listed in this paper is 0.8%. So, the only people for whom SARS-CoV-2 infection is more dangerous than influenza is those over the age of 60.
All others have a lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than they have of dying from the flu. Put another way, if you’re under the age of 60, your chances of dying from the flu is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19.
White House coronavirus task force coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx also confirmed this far lower than typically reported mortality rate when she, in mid-August 2020, stated that it “becomes more and more difficult” to get people to comply with mask rules “when people start to realize that 99% of us are going to be fine.”(emphasis added)15
Expect Massive Propaganda Campaign to Boost Vaccine Uptake
With death rates being as low as they are for everyone under the age of 60, it really weakens the rationale for vaccinating the entire world, including newborns, the risk to whom the virus poses is virtually nil.
The vaccine looking increasingly unnecessary is likely a reason for why the U.S. government is planning to launch an “overwhelming” COVID-19 vaccine campaign this fall, using carefully researched messages. As detailed in “Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century,” Yale University has conducted a trial16 to determine the type of message that will maximize acceptance and uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine. Messaging slants evaluated in the investigation included:17
Personal freedom message — A message about how COVID-19 is limiting people’s personal freedom and how working together to get enough people vaccinated can preserve society’s personal freedoms.
Economic freedom message — A message about how COVID-19 is limiting people’s economic freedom and how, by working together to get enough people vaccinated, society can preserve its economic freedom.
Self-interest message — A message that COVID-19 presents a real danger to one’s health, even if one is young and healthy, with the idea being that getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the best way to prevent oneself from getting sick.
Community interest message — A message about the dangers of COVID-19 to the health of loved ones. The idea to promote is that the more people who get vaccinated against COVID-19, the lower the risk that one’s loved ones will get sick. The idea: Society must work together and all get vaccinated.
Economic benefit message — A message about how COVID-19 is wreaking havoc on the economy and the only way to strengthen the economy is to work together to get enough people vaccinated.
Guilt message — This message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community, with the idea that the best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated, and that society must work together to get enough people vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.
Embarrassment message — This message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. The idea to promote is that the best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and by working together to make sure enough people get vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the embarrassment they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and subsequently spread the disease.
Anger message — This message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. The sales idea is that the best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and by working together to make sure that enough people get vaccinated. It then asks the participant to imagine the anger they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.
Trust in science message — A message about how getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the most effective way of protecting one’s community. It promotes the idea that vaccination is backed by science, and that anyone who doesn’t get vaccinated doesn’t understand how infections are spread or who ignores science.
Not bravery message — A message which describes how firefighters, doctors and front line medical workers are brave, and infers that those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not brave.
The study, which was completed July 8, 2020, also sought to determine:
Participant’s confidence in the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine after hearing the message in question
Participant’s willingness to persuade others to get vaccinated
Their fear of those who have not been vaccinated
The social judgment of those who choose not to vaccinate
Prosocial Pressure Tactics Work Best
Harvard Business School in collaboration with the Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have also published a working paper18 comparing self-interested versus prosocial motivations for COVID-19 prevention behaviors.
Considering the messages we’ve been bombarded with over the past few months — calling people who don’t wear masks “grandma killers” and so on — it seems clear that results from these kinds of investigations have been capitalized on.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~ Voltaire
In that paper, “Don’t Get It or Don’t Spread It?” the authors review studies in which various types of messages were compared — messages highlighting the threat to self, versus the threat you might pose to others.
Overall, prosocial messages, i.e., messages that stress the importance of complying with prevention behaviors in order to protect others fared the best. According to the authors:19
(Go to link for excerpt)
Stop Believing in the Lockdown
A powerful essay20 in the American Institute for Economic Research asks the question: Is the lockdown the best way to minimize casualties in this pandemic?
Using historical examples beginning with Voltaire’s words, “those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities,” the author reasons that lockdowns are not going to save the world from COVID-19, if for no other reason than whenever lockdowns are eased, infections naturally start to creep back up.
However, the vast majority of these “infections” or “cases” are asymptomatic. …
Never in medical history has a “case” meant someone who is perfectly healthy and requires testing to determine whether they are infected with a particular pathogen. Would you get tested for the common cold or influenza if you had no symptoms? …
There are other myths, mostly scare tactics, that people are willingly believing that need to be stopped now, too, the author asserts — and it’s time to start questioning what is credulous and what is not. I encourage you to read that essay in its totality.
The Fatal Attraction of Techno-Fascism
Another article21 well worth reading is Mark Petrakis’ “The Fatal Attraction of Techno-Fascism.” This one also starts off with an excellent quote by Cato the Elder: “Those who are serious in ridiculous matters will be ridiculous in serious matters.” One of the first points he makes is that fascism is attractive because:
“… it requires so little from us, so little independent thought; just our basic belief and adherence to a limited set of popularly-shared directives and narratives that once fully accepted, relieve us of the need to address stubborn questions or to fret over subtle differences of opinion and feeling.
Propaganda reassures us that we are complete, that we know all there is to know, that we are rational, pragmatic and pure, that the science has been settled and that we are a part of something special.”
Petrakis goes on to discuss why propaganda and disinformation is required in order to maintain control in a fascist regime, and how truth is a liability that must be disallowed and penalized. In the end, the price we pay for this kind of intellectual laziness is “soul-crushing denial and disconnection.”
No one who has been paying attention this past year in particular can have missed that propaganda is in full swing, 24/7, and that both truthful facts and personal opinions that run counter to the established propaganda narrative are being censored and penalized in equal measure.
When it comes to COVID-19, the propaganda is so pervasive and widespread that it has actually shattered what Petrakis refers to as “the grandest illusion of all” that “must be maintained at all costs,” namely the appearance that the propaganda messages are randomly generated.
“It must always appear that the media’s coverage and the comments of experts are entirely free from any preconceived manipulation,” he says. Today, there is little doubt that the narrative we see is anything but free from bias. There’s little doubt that what we’re told is “weaponized storytelling,” to quote Petrakis yet again.
(Go to link for quote)
Ultimately, the economic system known as technocracy is tailor-made for the transhumanist revolution — which I touch upon in “Will New COVID Vaccine Make You Transhuman?” — where man is merged with technology and AI. As always, the lure will be greater convenience, self-improvement and “a better world for all.”
What’s never mentioned is the ultimate price. The price for all of it is complete subjugation to faceless leaders who profit from your every move, and therefore will dictate all of them.
COVID-19 Rules Mark ‘Hysterical Slide Into Police State’
I’ll end this with some observations by British Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, who in a March 30, 2020, interview22 with The Post warned that COVID-19 rules are paving the way for despotism — the exercise of absolute power in a cruel and oppressive manner.
“The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it’s not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It’s usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated.”
It is time to ask ourselves some very pressing questions. Is it reasonable to expect government to eliminate ALL infection and ALL death? They’ve proven they cannot, yet we keep relinquishing more and more freedoms and liberties because they claim doing so will keep everyone safer. It’s an enticing lie, but a lie nonetheless.
Remember, they sold us on the business shutdowns and home quarantining by saying we just need to flatten the curve of infection to avoid hospital overcrowding. Now the curve is in a visible nosedive and hospitals are far from overcrowded with COVID-19 patients, yet lockdowns remain in many areas and some — Australia being a prime example — have reached astonishing new heights.
Sooner or later everyone must decide which is more important: Personal liberty or false security? Circling back to where I started, the good news is that many are in fact starting to see the writing on the wall; they’re starting to see we’ve been “had,” and are starting to choose liberty over brutal totalitarianism in the name of public health.
In the EU referendum about whether or not the UK should remain in the European Union, the UK government warned that leaving the EU could mean 10 years of uncertainty as new trade deals are formed, and even a collapse of the UK economy with a year of recession.
Meanwhile, the news media and anti-EU politicians concentrated on the topic of immigration, leaving the general public in fear of increasing migrants who will drain the economy and swarm their towns (source).
This same fear mongering happened in Norway when they held a referendum in 1994 (source); yet Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland, as non-EU members within Europe, enjoy some of the highest living standards in the world.
Iceland was also the only country to put bankers in prison instead of bail them out (source) and Norway will ban the sale of all fossil fuel-based cars in the next decade (source).
But inside the EU, a member country has the ability to influence the laws of 507 million people. Surely it makes sense to be part of a group of nations working together for a shared common good?
How The EU Works
Let’s have a look at how the EU works:
First, there is the European Parliament, where MEPs are elected by the general public to represent them; their job is to vote for or against proposed new EU laws.
Next there is the European Council, where the nations’ leaders meet; yet their job is also not to propose new legislation.
That is the role of the European Commission, which consists of 28 commissioners — one for each member country. These people are not elected but chosen by each country’s current leader. It is these unelected commissioners who create the laws, not the leaders or MEPs we vote in.
It is also important to note that the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon replaced all previous treaties as the new EU constitution; in this treaty, it is also almost impossible for any country to petition a law once it has been put in force (source).
So where are these Commissioners getting their ideas for the laws? They come from the The European Round Table of Industrialists. The ERT consists of “around 50 Chief Executives and Chairmen of major multinational companies” and the ERT was formed with the express intention of shaping and furthering EU integration (source).
For example, in January 1985, the ERT presented “Europe 1990 – an agenda for action,” an action plan for the single market; 10 days later Jacques Delors, the new President of the Commission, gave his speech about the single market in parliament, and in June 1985, the Single Market White Paper was published, which was a copy and paste from the ERT action plan (source).
Today the ERT have a website, but in the 1990s they were extremely secretive, and in 1991 they quietly published their report called “Reshaping Europe.”
In 1997 they negotiated a trade agreement at the OECD called the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), which allowed corporations to sue governments if EU laws increasing environmental protection, improving labor standards, securing equal treatment for women, or taxing capital impeded on their profits (source).
The proposal was leaked and the agreement fell through, so the ERT put the agreement forward again under the name MIA at the WTO, but this time the commissioners resigned due to several counts of fraud and the MIA was also never passed (source).
Maybe you have heard about TTIP or CETA? These are new versions of this same trade agreement which now incorporate the USA and Canada, as corporations push harder than ever for their monopoly over governments to be enforced for the greater good.
Greenpeace Netherlands leaked copies of TTIP, stating, “Whether you care about environmental issues, animal welfare, labour rights or internet privacy, you should be concerned about what is in these leaked documents” (source).
Europe, Inc. is another non-profit report showing the dangerous liaisons between industry and EU institutions as well as other international institutions, such as the OECD, WTO, and the United Nations.
But surely none of this really matters because we can trust the EU to ultimately make decisions that are best for the people, right?
In 2002, Marta Andreasen was employed by the European Commission as Chief Accountant, but when she approached the Commission because huge sums of EU monies were unaccounted for, the Commission fired her for “failure to show sufficient loyalty and respect.” When Marta took this to the EU court, she was found guilty of refusing to sign accounts that she believed were unreliable, and she lost her pension (source).
One month after the economy collapsed in 2008, the then President of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso, appointed The Independent High Level Group on Financial Supervision. But this was not a group of independent economic experts; it was a group of eight men linked to Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs — three of the US banks that caused the crisis in the first place.
For Greece, the decision was made to have the general public’s bank accounts frozen (source), withdrawals limited (source), and deposits taxed (source), and when the people of Greece voted on rejecting further loans from the EU in 2015 (source), the EU threatened to punish Greece further (source).
If corporations and banks are deciding what laws the commissioners should create, if politicians are cooperating with these corporations and banks, and if the decision-making processes by these corporations, banks, and politicians are deliberately being carried out in secret, is it enough for us to just say that this is the world we live in today? Where is the EU heading?
Within the EU itself, it is no secret that the goal is to build a superstate renamed the United States of Europe (1, 2, 3), with its own central government (source) and an EU army (source), as well as EU border and coast guards and a European CIA (source).
The EU’s CIA does now exist, Eurojust is also being given power to start criminal investigations and prosecutions, and Europol is the European Union’s police force.
Meanwhile, the EU is blocking its borders to the humanitarian crisis caused by wars that it is supporting, and it is increasingly being called “Fortress Europe” (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
USA Getting Involved
The USA is also sending in a wave of military assistance to provide “a visible symbol of U.S. commitment to the region and our European allies” (1, 2, 3, 4).
Have we not learned from history that when the economic situation gets increasingly worse for the general public (1, 2, 3, 4), and people start to act out of fear towards others (1, 2), they turn a blind eye to their own government’s role in the treatment of others around the world (source), they accept the removal of all their civil rights (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), and they sign up for war (source), which only increases hatred and propagates more violence (source)?
We also know from history that this situation is a potential recipe for fascism, dictatorship, and a police state (1, 2,3, 4, 5); yet we still cling on to the notion that democracy means letting these people run things on our behalf.
A recent study by Princeton University has statistically proven that the USA is now covertly ruled by a small group of people in government, big business, media, and the intelligence services. Does the evidence presented here not suggest that this is also the case in Europe?
People say there is nothing we can do, but this system only functions because we cooperate. We blame society, but we are society. The question is, when are we going to speak out — at work, in public, on social media — and proudly shout out “no more!”?
WUWE is a project to promote critical thinking and inspire positive systemic change by raising awareness of global issues not covered in mainstream media; please support us on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, or subscribe for our latest updates here.