TECHNOCRACY RISING

The Trojan Horse of Global

Transformation
by Patrick M. Wood
The dark horse of the
New World Order is not Communism, Socialism or
Fascism. It is Technocracy.
 DEDICATION
This book is dedicated to my two daughters, Debra and Jennifer, and
my two sons, Joshua and Benjamin, and their children, who may have to
live with the consequences of the Brave New World of Technocracy,
should this present generation fail to reject it.
 PREFACE
The dark horse of the New World Order is not Communism,
Socialism or Fascism: It is Technocracy.1

I thedon’t know anyone who follows the news who doesn’t say that
world seems to be crumbling before his eyes. The American
dynasty has seemingly hit a brick wall in every conceivable direction.
Wealth is shrinking, record numbers are on welfare, our political
structures are dysfunctional, regulations are suffocating the economy,
personal privacy has been shattered, foreign policy disasters are
everywhere, racial con lict is the highest in decades and on and on.
Don’t think that these changes are merely some strange twist of fate
or that they are somehow all unrelated. They are not!
In fact, the world is being actively transformed according to a very
narrow economical/political/social philosophy called Technocracy, and
it is impacting every segment of society in every corner of the world.
Furthermore, Technocracy is being sponsored and orchestrated by a
global elite led by David Rockefeller’s and Zbigniew Brzezinski’s
Trilateral Commission. Let the evidence speak for itself. [Note:
Trilateral Commission member names are in bold type.]
Originally started in the early 1930s, Technocracy is antithetical to
every American institution that made us into the greatest nation on
earth. It eschews property rights, obsoletes capitalism, hates
politicians and traditional political structures, and promises a lofty
utopian dream made possible only if engineers, scientists and
technicians are allowed to run society. When Aldous Huxley penned
Brave New World in 1932, he accurately foresaw this wrenching
transformation of society and predicted that the end of it would be a
scienti ic dictatorship unlike anything the world has ever seen.
Indeed, Technocracy is transforming economics, government,
religion and law. It rules by regulation, not by Rule of Law, policies are
dreamed up by unelected and unaccountable technocrats buried in
government agencies, and regional governance structures are
replacing sovereign entities like cities, counties and states. This is
precisely why our society seems so dislocated and irreparable.
Still say you’ve never heard of Technocracy? Well, you probably have
but under different names. The tentacles of Technocracy include
programs such as Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Global
Warming/Climate Change, Cap and Trade, Agenda 21, Common Core
State Standards, Conservation Easements, Public-Private Partnerships,
Smart Growth, Land Use, energy Smart Grid, de-urbanization and de-
population. In America, the power grab of Technocracy is seen in the
castrating of the Legislative Branch by the Executive Branch, replacing
laws and lawmakers with Re lexive Law and regulators, and
establishing regional Councils of Governments in every state to usurp
sovereignty from cities, counties and states.
Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation
connects the dots in ways you have never seen before, taking you on a
historical journey that leads right up to the current day. It will show you
how this coup de grâce is taking place right under our noses and what
we might do to stop it.
When Americans saw through Technocracy in the 1930s, they
forcefully rejected it and the people who promoted it. If Americans are
able to recognize this modern-day Trojan horse, they can reject it
again. Indeed, they must!
Patrick M. Wood Author
1 Patrick M. Wood, “Technocracy’s Endgame: Global Smart Grid”, August Forecast & Review, 2011.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

T his book would not exist without the encouragement and

knowledge of a number of people. Special thanks is given to Dr.
Martin Erdmann for his patient instruction and diverse knowledge on
these topics; to Carl Teichrib, who co-labored with me in much of the
early research needed for this book; to Michael Shaw for his detailed
and knowledgeable input on Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development;
to the University of Alberta (Canada) for generously granting access to
me to study their extremely valuable historical library archives on
Technocracy, Inc. Special thanks is also given to those who actually
turned this into a book: to my loving wife, Charmagne, who encouraged
me every step of the way and whose sharp eye turned up literally
hundreds of editing issues; to Gail Hardaway, whose teaching career in
English greatly helped in the editing and proo ing process; to Spencer
Fettig for her youthful and critical proof-reading skills and suggestions
that de initely brought more clarity to many passages; and to all my
friends at RevelationGate Ministries who encouraged and donated to
this project. Above all, I give credit and thanks to the God of the
universe who put this information in front of me and then opened my
eyes to understand what I was actually looking at, without which I
would most certainly still be wandering the halls of intellectual
ignorance.
 FOREWORD
That which has been is what will be,
That which is done is what will be done,
And there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there anything of which it may be said,
“See, this is new?” It has already been in
Ancient times before us. (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10)
Modern Technocracy and Transhumanism are both products of the
notion that science and technology can somehow ful ill the utopian
dream of perfecting society in general and humanness in particular.
Furthermore, the rapid advancement of science and technology is
leading its practitioners to believe more strongly than ever that inal
and total deliverance from their unenlightened past is but a
hairsbreadth away. They see wars being eliminated, poverty being
eradicated and society living in perfect harmony thanks to their careful
scienti ic management. However, as you shall see, the desire to reform
society and humanity is hardly new but is deeply rooted in both history
and in religious substitution; in history, because there are many
examples of an elite using their control over some form of technology
to subjugate others; in religious substitution, because traditional faith
in God as the sole provider of redemption and transcendence has been
replaced by a reliance on science and technology to provide the same
bene its.
The religious foundations for technological advancement have been
either ignored or hidden away from the view of most Westerners
during most of the past two centuries. As long as modernity’s
Positivism – the principal philosophy of what would later undergird the
technocratic worldview – held sway over the minds of its adherents,
the conscious recognition of a reality other than what naturalism
offered could be denied. Postmodernity’s recognition of the futility to
wilfully suppress the knowledge of technology’s religious aspects has
not necessarily generated a more realistic view of its advantages and
limitations in the world of physical reality. Quite the contrary, the
present-day acolytes of technology who serve in the corporate and
academic temples of research and development are even more
committed than their forbearers to achieve the impossible: perfection
in each and every aspect of human existence. The ideals of Utopia have
never been more widely hailed as the foundation stones of modern
living than by the proponents of a communitarian and technocratic
world society.
It should be noted that while the lure of technology appeals to the
would-be captains of global hegemony, it also appeals to the lowest
echelons of humanity as well. For instance, the philosopher Michael
Heim wrote once, “Our fascination with computers... is more deeply
spiritual than utilitarian. When on-line, we break free from bodily
existence.” We then emulate the “perspective of God”, an all-at-oneness
of “divine knowledge”. Once again, technology is being promoted as a
means to transcendence and redemption. For some, this is a non-
traditional religious transcendence of the body and material
limitations in the ephemeral, ineffable realm known as “cyberspace”.
For others, it is a spiritual quest to transcend our limitations and
reacquire personal divinity. On a larger scale, the developers of nuclear
weapons, space exploration and arti icial intelligence, for instance, may
be propelled by religious desires, but they are sustained by military
inancing and the results of their labours are totalitarian governments
ruled by an elite of technocrats.
The reader is urged to make careful study of this book and its primary
message, that in the name of science and scientism, technocracy is on
the rise world-wide, that it is an age-old deception of the greatest
magnitude, that it is not what it appears to be and that it cannot make
good delivery on its fantastical promises.
Dr. Martin Erdmann, Director
Verax Institut
 COPYRIGHT © 2015 BY PATRICK M. WOOD

All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof

may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever
without the express written permission of the publisher
except for the use of brief quotations in a book review.
Printed in the United States of America
First Printing, 2015
ISBN 978-0-9863739-1-6
Coherent Publishing
P.O. Box 21269
Mesa, AZ 85277
www.CoherentPress.com
Additional Information & Updates
www.TechnocracyRising.com
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication v
Table of Contents vii
Acknowledgements ix
Foreword xi
Preface xiii
Introduction 1
Chapter 1 11
The Backdrop for Technocracy
Chapter 2 19
From Passion to Meltdown (1920-1940)
Chapter 3 45
The Trilateral Commission
Chapter 4 77
Transforming Economics
Chapter 5 99
Transforming Government
Chapter 6 115
Transforming Religion
Chapter 7 129
Transforming Law
Chapter 8 141
Transforming Energy:Global Smart Grid
Chapter 9 165
The Total Surveillance Society
Chapter 10 179
Transforming Humanity
Chapter 11 189
Taking Action
Chapter 12 201
Conclusion
Appendix I 209
Transforming Christianity
Appendix II 223
1979 Interview with George S. Franklin
Appendix III 245
The Earth Charter
Bibliography 255
Index 267
 INTRODUCTION
Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scienti ic
operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute
goods and services to the entire population…2

L et me be clear about the intent and scope of this book. My

premise is that when it was founded in 1973, the Trilateral
Commission quietly adopted a modi ied version of historic
Technocracy to craft what it called a “New International Economic
Order”. This has been largely unrecognized even to this day. With the
combined weight of the most powerful global elite behind it,
Technocracy has lourished in the modern world and has perhaps
reached the tipping point of no return. This book will explain
Technocracy in detail, demonstrate the methodology that has been
used to implement it, document the control over power centers that
allowed the methodology to be used, and most importantly, expose the
perpetrators who are responsible for it. If the reader does not see the
importance of these connections, then neither will he see the economic
and political dangers in such things like Sustainable Development,
Agenda 21, Public-Private Partnerships, Smart Growth, Green Economy,
Smart Grid, Common Core State Standards, Councils of Governments,
etc. The creation of all of these programs will be laid at the feet of the
Trilateral Commission, in the name of Technocracy. Indeed, the
Trilateral Commission and its members were simultaneously the
philosophical creators of modern Technocracy as well as the
implementers as they occupied key positions in governments, business
and academia since 1973.
I can already hear the Trilaterals and Technocrats howling in protest
after reading just this irst paragraph. “Not so!”, “Foolishness!”,
“Lunacy!” I’ve heard this lame defense for almost 40 years. One of the
irst lessons learned about liars in my early days, when the Cold War
was in full play - and the Soviets were also consummate liars - was to
“Watch what they do, not what they say.” So, to all you elitists who
might perchance be reading this book, you stand naked before the
evidence.
 To the rest of the inquiring world, you may not like what you discover
here, but if you follow along to the end, you will see all the dots inally
connected in a way that makes perfect sense.
The term technocracy was irst used publicly by W.H. Smythe in his
1919 article, “Industrial Management”. During that time in history,
academics and professionals were fervently debating various aspects
of the industrial and technological revolutions and their impact on
society, economy and government structures.
The word itself is derived from the Greek words “techne”, meaning
skilled and “kratos”, meaning rule. Thus, it is government by skilled
engineers, scientists and technicians as opposed to elected of icials.
Technocracy was generally considered to be exclusive of all other
forms of government, including democracy, communism, socialism and
fascism, but as we shall see, there was some ideological blending of
ideas when it suited the person or group doing the talking.
In any case, whenever you hear the word Technocracy, this minimum
de inition will always apply. As the movement progressed and ideas
were expanded, some of those additional ideas were branded
backward into the original de inition as modifying clauses, but they
only added to the original meaning without necessarily changing it.
My interest in globalism and the activities of the global elite started
in 1976 when I was a young inancial writer and securities analyst. I
later teamed up with Antony C. Sutton to study and write about the
Trilateral Commission, its policies and members, and their plans for
global hegemony. Sutton taught me how to “Follow the money. Follow
the power.” which has proven to be an invaluable aid in getting to the
heart of a matter. Although I would like to write a follow-up book to our
Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II, the subject of Technocracy
now trumps all others. If there is a holy grail (or, unholy grail) of
understanding on the New World Order, this is it.
In a nutshell, historic Technocracy is a utopian economic system that
discards price-based economics in favor of energy or resource-based
economics. Technocracy is so radically different from all current
economic norms that it will stretch your mind to get a grasp of what it
actually means and what it implies for a global society.
 However, in order to properly integrate Technocracy into the total
picture, I will brie ly address some other important and related topics
along the way, such as Scientism, Transhumanism and Scienti ic
Dictatorship. That these are not dealt with in full at present is not to
diminish their importance in any way; perhaps follow-up works will
allow for a more detailed and complete treatment of those topics.
In the 1930s, there was a popular movement called Technocracy that
spawned a large and zealous following of hundreds of thousands of
members in the United States and Canada. Sadly, history books reveal
little about this movement, and so my study of it required a signi icant
amount of time-consuming original research at signi icant personal
expense. As I dug deeply into historical archives and old media, I was
increasingly shocked by the impact that Technocracy had then and is
having on the world today.
There have been many small crackpot movements throughout
history to which we might say, “Who cares?” When a hundred people
get together to talk about UFOs, utopian philosophy or whatever, it’s
just a hundred people getting together. If nothing comes of it, all the
folks eventually pass and history forgets that they were ever alive. This
is not so with Technocracy for many reasons:

By the 1930s there was at least a 100 year backdrop of

philosophical justi ication for Scientism and Technocracy.
The organizers were top tier engineers and scientists of their
day, many of whom were professors at prestigious
universities such as Columbia University.
Their plans were meticulously detailed, documented and
openly published.
The impact of their policies and philosophy on the modern
global society is gargantuan.

Technocracy is about economic and social control of society and

persons according to the Scienti ic Method. Most of us think about the
so-called scienti ic method when we think back on the carefully crafted
experiments in high school chemistry or biology class. That is not what
I’m talking about here. Technocracy’s Scienti ic Method dates back
mostly to philosophers Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and
Auguste Comte (1798-1857).
According to the global-minded New School,
Henri de Saint-Simon is renowned as the founder of the “Saint-
Simonian” movement, a type of semi-mystical “Christian-Scienti ic”
socialism that pervaded the 19th Century. Saint-Simon envisaged the
reorganization of society with an elite of philosophers, engineers and
scientists leading a peaceful process of industrialization tamed by
their “rational” Christian-Humanism. His advocacy of a “New
Christianity” -- a secular humanist religion to replace the defunct
traditional religions -- was to have scientists as priests. This priestly
task was actually taken up by two of his followers -- Barthelemy-
Prosper Enfantin (1796-1864) and Saint-Amand Bazard (1791-1832)
-- who infected the whole movement with their bizarre mysticism and
ritual.3
Saint-Simon, along with Comte, is considered a father of so-called
“social science” studies in universities world-wide. He was the irst
philosopher to bring psychology, physiology, physics, politics and
economics to the study of humanity and human behavior and the irst
to suggest that the Scienti ic Method could be used in the process to
discover what made man and society tick. As such, he had no regard for
what “little people” thought and highest regard for those enlightened
ones of superior intellectual abilities. Human nature was merely an
object of dispassionate research and objective analysis.4
Auguste Comte was the founder of the discipline of Sociology and the
doctrine of Positivism, and many regard him as the irst philosopher of
science. He was heavily in luenced by Saint-Simon. Comte promoted
the notion that the only authentic knowledge is scienti ic knowledge
and that the Scienti ic Method was the only way to arrive at such truth.
If you want to learn more about Saint-Simon, Comte and their
followers, there are a multitude of good resources in your public or
university library and on the Internet. The point of invoking their
names here is to point out that Technocracy’s elite way of thinking had
been brewing for a long time and was hardly original with modern
technocrats. However, since science was rapidly advancing during the
1920s and 1930s (and the Great Depression falsely convinced many
that capitalism and free enterprise were dead), they believed that they
alone possessed the knowledge to make a scienti ic society operate
successfully and ef iciently. Further, bolstered by the supposed death of
capitalism during the Great Depression, they igured that their ship had
inally come in, and it was time for them to take over, restructure
society along scienti ic lines, and thereby save the world: no more
depressions, no more war, no more poverty.
You will soon learn everything about Technocracy that you wish you
did not know, and yet there is one more important point that you need
to understand to put it all in context. In order for Technocracy to
succeed, it is necessary to have in place a comprehensive system for
the orderly management of all humans and all facets of societal
operation. This includes the economic, political, social and religious.
Furthermore, these areas must not be merely compatible; they must be
so thoroughly entangled with each other that distinctions among them
will not be obvious to their subjects. Indeed, this is the “holistic”
approach to global governance. [Note: Governance is a process of
regulatory management and does not refer to representative
government, as it is commonly understood. The regulators are
unelected “experts” who answer to no one, as is the case with the
European Union, for instance.]
This is an important point to grasp because it permeates the thinking
of all historical and modern Technocrats alike. It is, so to speak, the
“glue that binds” these concepts together, rendering them inseparable,
interdependent and symbiotic. Unfortunately, in order for you to really
get into the Technocrat’s mind, I must digress into one more
philosophical discussion, but I promise it will be short!
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. The
philosophical concepts that have grown up around these words have as
much to do with metaphysics and religion as they do with politics or
economics.
In 1926, Jan Christian Smuts (1870-1950) wrote a political treatise
called Holism and Evolution. Who was Smuts? As a statesman, military
commander, politician and philosopher, Smuts advocated the founding
of the League of Nations and later was a leading igure in the creation
of the United Nations Covenant. In 1917, he was chosen to be a
member of the Imperial War Cabinet in England, during which time he
helped to found the Royal Air Force. In his native South Africa, Smuts
was twice elected Prime Minister after holding several lesser elected
positions.
In Holism and Evolution, Smuts proposed the “Theory of the Whole”
which states, in part, that “what a thing is in its sum is of greater
importance than its component parts.”5 Thus, the city is more
important than its inhabitants, the state is more important than its
cities, and the whole of humanity is more important than cities, nation-
states and all the humans therein. The individual is seen relinquishing
his or her rights, privileges and aspirations to the greater good. Smuts
viewed evolution as an integral part of the holism phenomenon as
towns grow into cities, cities into states, states into countries and
countries into a global society. From every sub-atomic particle to the
entire universe, each smaller part is integral and subservient to the
larger. This is an early-modern scienti ic notion of the earth as a
complete organism (whole) that has many interdependent parts
(smaller wholes) that are subservient to the larger organism. Holism is
also the rationale for regionalism of all magnitudes, whether Councils
of Governments within states, or country groupings within continents,
such as the European Union.
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.6 Koestler suggested that a holon is a stable unit within a
larger system that is controlled by other holons greater than it, all of
which are in a continuous state of evolution to a higher, more complex
form. Such a complete system of holons is referred to as a holarchy.
Accordingly, “The entire machine of life and of the Universe itself
evolves toward ever more complex states, as if a ghost were operating
the machine.”7
Personally, I reject this thinking altogether because man is the
pinnacle of creation and not a mere holon that must serve the holarchy.
In other words, I believe that man is not to be the servant of nature, but
rather nature is to be the servant of man. In the balance of this book, I
will make the case that Technocrats, from the 1930s until the present,
view all of the holons in the world as little more than engineering
projects to be analyzed, debugged and re-engineered according to their
Scienti ic Method. They are an egotistical bunch, to be sure, thinking
that they alone have the technical abilities to save the rest of us from
our ignorance and archaic beliefs such as Christianity, liberty, and
personal freedom.
The Devil in the Details
It is no mistake that there is a decidedly religious aspect to
Technocracy. Saint-Simon’s “New Christianity” saw a pressing need to
replace historical Christianity with a secular humanist religion where
scientists and engineers would constitute the new priesthood.
This is in stark contrast to New Testament Christianity where the
Bible speaks of the church, for instance,
But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His
own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who
called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9)
Saint-Simon’s New Christianity not only rede ined the object of
worship - science instead of God - but also the priesthood that would
serve this new god. However, this same scenario has played itself out
innumerable times in the Old and New Testament. When the One God of
the universe was seen as abandoned, idols and false gods were created
to replace Him and to provide various ill-de ined bene its to would-be
worshipers. Some prominent examples in the Old Testament include
Marduk, Baal, Bel, Molech, Ashtoreth, Tamuz, Dagon, etc. In the early
period of the New Testament church, competing idols included Apollo,
Zeus, Helen, Athena, Pluto, Hermes and so on. Each of these idols had
its own attendant priesthood, that is, those who were allowed to
approach their god and who alone were allowed to relay what their god
had to say to his/her followers.
To say that Christianity and idolatry are mutually exclusive is easily
seen in the New Testament where Christians are simply told to “ lee
from idolatry” (1 Corinthians 10:14). The apostle Paul goes on to say,
…the things which the Gentiles sacri ice they sacri ice to demons and
not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. You
cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot
partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. Or do we
provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He? (1 Corinthians
10:20-22)
Here is the crux of the matter: There is a Devil in the details of
Technocracy. We must be very careful in our examination of
Technocracy to see this undercurrent of religious substitution because
it proves to be the basis for global deception greater than anything the
world has seen to date.
Technocracy will be shown to be thoroughly anti-Christian and
completely intolerant of Biblical thought. This has always been the
hallmark sign seen in idolatrous religions and practices!
As stark as the contrast might be upon careful examination, we will
also see how threads of Technocracy, Scientism and Transhumanism
are interweaving themselves into the modern Christian church. Many
modern Bible-believing Christians are quite disturbed and perplexed
by this intrusion into historic Christianity. For technocrats who see
Technocracy as salvation for both political and economic structures,
then certainly it can be salvation for your soul as well. This is very
dangerous thinking and is leading many Christians and churches into a
state of active apostasy, a falling away from traditional Biblical
doctrines, teachings and practices.
Trilateral Commission
In 1978 when I co-authored Trilaterals Over Washington Volumes I and
II with the late Antony C. Sutton, we wrote extensively about a newly
formed elitist group called the Trilateral Commission that was co-
founded by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. They chose
about 250 elitists from North America, Europe and Japan in order to
create a “New International Economic Order” (NIEO). The membership
consisted of people from academia, industry, inance, media and
government.
Sutton and I interpreted the NIEO as a reshuf ling of conventional
economic theory, such as Keynesianism, in order for their members to
game the system for their own bene it. After all, the elite have been
known for this type of crass manipulation to accumulate money to
themselves at the expense of every one else in society. We thought this
was the case with the Trilateral Commission.
Brzezinski’s 1968 book, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the
Technetronic Era, was written when he was a professor at Columbia
University, yet it was this book that originally endeared him to
Rockefeller and other elitists. Sutton and I wrote extensively on
Brzezinski’s philosophy and conclusions as revealed in Between Two
Ages, but neither of us had any inkling that the word “Technetronic”
might have been a knockoff for the word “Technocratic”. Why? Because
at that time neither of us had any knowledge of Technocracy or its
doctrines. However, as I was researching the history of Technocracy the
thought occurred to me to go back and re-read Between Two Ages to
see if there were any parallels or conceptual connections to early
Technocracy. Needless to say, I was shocked: throughout his book,
Brzezinski was loating the party line of Technocracy.
Thus, it became increasingly clear to me that the Trilateral
Commission’s original goal of creating a New International Economic
Order might actually mean abandoning status quo economics in favor
of a completely different economic system of Technocracy. If this is the
case, then it has escaped virtually everyone’s attention for the last 40-
plus years!
Well, better late than never, I suppose…. I therefore hope that you will
make a careful and detailed reading of this book from beginning to end
and then do some digging on your own to see if these things are true or
not.
In 2009, when I had formalized my research on Technocracy to the
point that I could adequately communicate it to others, I contacted a
few of my professional colleagues, all of whom are very well educated
on various aspects of economic globalization, global religion, science
and world politics. Not only was there general acceptance of the
research, but the most common response was, “This connects all the
dots that we could not previously connect.” In other words,
Technocracy really is the glue that binds together disparate events,
movements and concepts.
On the whole, if this new knowledge collectively drew alarm from
them, then I realized that Technocracy was much bigger than I had
originally thought. They not only encouraged me to continue this work,
but they also put themselves to the task of further research as well. In
this sense, I am not writing this book alone or in a vacuum but rather
with the concurrence of disciplined minds from different academic
genres.
Understanding Technocracy will help you to understand and connect
seemingly unrelated topics like

Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development

Land and water grabs by Federal agencies
ICLEI, Smart Growth and Public-Private Partnerships
Communitarianism, the Third Way and Communitarian Law
Global Warming/Climate Change
Smart Grid, Carbon Credits, Cap & Trade

Indeed, all of these modern phenomena have their roots irmly

planted in the doctrines of early Technocracy as far back as the 1930s
and beyond!
2 “What Is Technocracy?”, The Technocrat, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1938.
3 Quoted from The New School website, as of 10/5/2012
4 The Great Debate web site, http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/Saint-Simon.html
5 Dr. Paul Moller, Holism and Evolution, (College of European and Regional Studies, 2006).
6 Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine, (Macmillan, 1968), p. 48.
7 Piero Mella, The Holonic Revolution, 2009. (Pavia University Press, 2009).
 CHAPTER 1
T B T

T echnocracy did not spring out of nowhere. Rather, there were a

host of philosophies co-mingling with each other from at least
the mid-1800s through the turn of the century. This cauldron initially
produced more discussion than action, but it was inevitable that some
strains of thoughts would solidify into society-changing movements.
And indeed, they did: Darwinism spawned the eugenics movement;
Marxist philosophies led directly to the Communist overthrow in
Russia; Fabian socialism was identi ied with colonialism in southern
Africa; the Technocracy movement took off in the 1920s, and so on.
The fact is, “Ideas matter!” What seems like a crazy idea today could
just as easily change the world tomorrow. In that sense, the period
between 1890 and 1930 was a pivotal time for the future of the world.
All notions of Biblical inerrancy and historical accuracy had been
discarded by the intellectual elite. Radical new inventions created by
scientists and engineers were revolutionizing both the physical and
social world. The engineered and mechanized slaughter during World
War I sent shockwaves to every corner of the world.
The purpose of this book is to explain Technocracy and not the
broader experience of world history. Thus, the following abbreviated
statements about prominent philosophies and philosophers of the
period can only serve as a reminder for what people were processing in
their minds at the time. For the curious desiring more detail, there are
a myriad of works available in your local or university library.
Positivism
The Frenchman Auguste Comte (1798-1857) is known as the father
of modern sociology and was the founder of Positivism, a philosophy
that was very popular in the late 1800s. Comte was considered the irst
philosopher of science as he elevated science by claiming that the only
authentic knowledge is scienti ic knowledge. This naturally discarded
all notions of absolute truth based on the Bible and metaphysical truth
based on man’s imaginations. Comte believed that his “science of
society” could be discovered and explained by applying the Scienti ic
Method in the same manner as it was applied to physical science.
Scientism
Scientism takes Positivism to an extreme by claiming that science
alone can produce truth about the world and reality. As such, it is more
radical and exclusionary than Positivism. Scientism rejects all
philosophical, religious and metaphysical claims to understand reality,
since the truth it portends cannot be validated by the Scienti ic
Method. Thus, science is the absolute and only access to truth and
reality. Scientism is often seen overstepping the bounds of provable
science by applying the Scienti ic Method to areas that cannot be
demonstrated, such as evolution, climate change and social science.
Progressivism
According to one historian, progressivism is a
political movement that addresses ideas, impulses, and issues
stemming from modernization of American society. Emerging at the
end of the nineteenth century, it established much of the tone of
American politics throughout the irst half of the century.8
Industrialization was enabled by science, technology and invention.
As knowledge increased, it was surmised that society must change
along with it, or at least adapt to it. Progressives called for bigger
government run by quali ied managers with diminishing personal
liberty and national sovereignty, but they simultaneously fought to
reduce waste and increase ef iciency in government. The emphasis on
ef iciency drove many progressives into Technocracy since science
appeared to be the only pathway to achieve it.
Darwinism
The philosophy of Darwinism grew out of Charles Darwin’s book The
Origin of Species,9 published in 1859, which proposed that all life
naturally evolved over long periods of time from the most simple
creature to the most complex. It speci ically rejected the Biblical
account of creation and in general all thoughts of intelligent design. By
the early 1900s, the concept of Darwinism had expanded to use
evolution to describe social change and eugenics theories. Eugenics
proposed the arti icial manipulation of the human “gene pool” via
selective breeding and “cleansing”, as ultimately seen in Hitler’s
genocidal rampages during WWII. With today’s advancement in
various technologies such as genetic engineering and nano-technology,
Transhumanists (Transhumanism and Technocracy both rely on
Scientism) are boldly claiming that they are now irmly in control of the
evolutionary process and will direct the creation of Humanity 2.0.
Fascism
Merriam-Webster de ines Fascism as
a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and
often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized
autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe
economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of
opposition.
What differentiates Fascism from Communism is its protection of
businesses and land-holding elites. Indeed, corporate entities during
Hitler’s war years were virtually merged with state interests. Today, the
term Fascism has multiple nuances, but all point to a totalitarian
system where corporatism and the state are seen as functionally
equivalent.
Socialism
The doctrines of Karl Marx are seen as the original basis for Socialism
as an economic and political model. Socialism eschews private
property and the accumulation of wealth through state-ownership of
all productive resources and distribution based on “to each according
to his need.” As with Marxism, Socialism is described differently
depending on the angle of observation, but the common denominator
in all cases is a high level of social and economic control through state-
ownership and management with authoritarian control over
production, distribution and consumption.
Fabianism
The Fabian Society was formed in England in 1884. It held to a form of
Socialism (thus often referred to as Fabian Socialism) that promoted a
slow and indirect transformation of society instead of a more radical
approach. It was named after the Roman General Fabius Maximus who
used delaying tactics against the Carthaginian army led by the famous
general, Hannibal. Over the decades, many famous individuals became
members of the Society, including H.G. Wells, Bernard Shaw, Virginia
Woolf and Bertrand Russell. Social activist Beatrice Webb played a key
role in forming the Society and later founded the London School of
Economics. The Fabian Society has had a profound in luence in many
nations and continents around the world, including Great Britain, the
United States, Europe and southern Africa.
The Influencers
Henri Saint-Simon (1760-1825)
Saint-Simon was recognized as the father of Technocracy by the
Technocrats themselves. He could also be considered the philosophical
father of the so-called “emerging church” that is becoming prominent
around the world today. Saint-Simon was born into an aristocratic
family in France, fought in the American Revolution and later turned to
a life of writing and philosophical criticism. He developed many radical
strains of thought that in luenced people after him, including Karl
Marx, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Auguste Comte among others. He
proposed a Christian socialism where everyone would be part of the
“brotherhood of man”, and suggested that private property should give
way to societal management by experts, or technocrats. His New
Christianity also called for churches to be administered by experts who
would direct their parishioners into social programs designed to
reform the world and alleviate poverty.10
Auguste Comte (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
irst “philosopher of science”, Comte is also credited as being the father
of modern sociology. Like Saint-Simon, Comte also placed a large focus
on religion by creating the “Religion of Humanity”, which some called
“Catholicism plus science” and others called “Catholicism without
Christ”.11 Comte also followed Saint-Simon’s concept of evolutionary
history by formulating three stages of societal development:
Theological, Metaphysical and Positive, with the later meaning that the
laws of science that control the world are fully known and understood.
Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929)
Born in America, Veblen was an economist and sociologist who
followed Saint-Simon’s and Comte’s theory of evolutionary history by
combining Darwinian evolution with his own institutional economics.
As a prominent igure in the progressive movement, he was iercely
critical of capitalism while he championed a leadership of a “soviet of
engineers”. In 1919, Veblen helped found the New School For Social
Research (today called The New School) that became a seedbed of
radical thought. The New School is where Veblen met Howard Scott, the
soon-to-be leader of the Technocracy movement in the U.S. In the early
1920s, Veblen, Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert were all members of
the Technical Alliance, a precursor to the Technocracy movement. Early
Technocrats universally credit Veblen as a leader of their early efforts
to de ine and organize a technocratic movement. Ironically, Veblen died
three months before the stock market crash in 1929, which proved to
be the catalyst for wide-spread public interest in Technocracy.
Frederick Taylor (1856-1915)
Taylor was an American mechanical engineer who became ixated on
ways to increase ef iciency in manufacturing processes and worked for
years studying and making improvements. In 1911, he published his
seminal work, Principles of Scienti ic Management12 and changed the
world of business management forever. Because of his expertise and
problem-solving skills, Taylor also inadvertently invented the
profession of business consulting. As his notoriety spread, the word
“Taylorism” became a synonym for Scienti ic Management. Taylorism
was widely adopted in the USSR as a means of increasing production
without having to increase education and training.
Edward Bellamy (1850-1898)
The writings and activism of Edward Bellamy, a dedicated socialist,
were widely received by the Technocracy movement after his death.
His most famous literary work, Looking Backward,13 was a Rip Van
Winkle sort of tale where the hero 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 Utopia where the state owns
one hundred percent of the means of production, run by experts, and
everyone in society has all his needs met while living in harmony with
each other. The book was an immediate best-seller and created an
enthusiastic social movement that lasted over 10 years. The
Nationalist Clubs, which promoted the socialist idea of nationalizing all
business, ultimately had 162 chapters across the U.S., with 65 of them
originating in California. Not incidentally, California later became a
hotbed for Technocracy meetings and organizations.
The Cauldron
Were these the only philosophies and people contributing to the
buildup to Technocracy? Absolutely not. These are standouts, however,
that help us to understand the complex mix out of which Technocracy
arose. Starting with Saint-Simon, it took over 100 years for
Technocracy to congeal and inally arise as serious academic and social
movements. Today, 80-100 years later, Technocracy has increased its
grip and in luence over the affairs of men. All of this is to say that
Technocracy was not some poorly thought out whim of an uneducated
crackpot. To the contrary, the progenitors of Technocracy include
academic professors, philosophers, inventors, social activists and
prominent members of society.
Setting differences aside, one can easily identify some common
threads: rejection of capitalism, distributed wealth, state-ownership of
industry, rule by experts instead of politicians, historical and societal
evolution as guides for the future, the preeminence of science and the
exclusion of Biblical Christianity.
If utopian scientists and engineers were thoroughly hooked on the
evolutionary progress of man and society by the 1920s, how much
more clever are they today as they strive to take evolution into their
own hands to create their own destinies? As the prestigious
Smithsonian Magazine stated in 2012,
Adherents of “transhumanism”—a movement that seeks to transform
Homo sapiens through tools like gene manipulation, “smart drugs”
 and nanomedicine—hail [scienti ic] developments as evidence that we
are becoming the engineers of our own evolution.14 [Emphasis
added]
8 Alonzo L. Harriby, “Progressivism: A Century of Change and Rebirth,” in Progressivism and the New
Democracy, ed. Sidney M. Milkis and Jerome M. Mileur (University of Massachusetts Press, 1999).
9 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, (London: J. Murray, 1859).
10 Henri Saint-Simon, The New Christianity, (London: B.D Cousins, 1825).
11 Arthur, Religion without God and God without religion, (London: Bemrose & Sons, 1885), p. 142.
12 Frederic Taylor, Principles of Scientific Management, (Harper & Brothers, 1911).
13 E. Bellamy, Looking Backward, (Boston: Ticknor, 1888).
14 Abigail Tucker, “How to become engineers of our own evolution”, Smithsonian Magazine, April 12, 2012.
 CHAPTER 2
F P M (1920-
1940)
The basic problem was that the technocrats’
social analysis lacked a political theory of
action.15

T he 1920s were not conducive to public acceptance of

Technocracy, nor was it even aware that prominent educators,
scientists and engineers were zealously laying the groundwork for it.
The interlude between the catastrophes of World War I, which ended in
November 1918, and the September 1929 stock market crash was a
mere 11 years. During that time, all sorts of societal changes would
take place that would taint the entire landscape for the next 100 years.
During the Great War, over 9 million combatants died. This shocked
the entire world, not only because of the number of dead, but the
means by which they died. It was the irst technology-driven war in the
history of the world: ships, tanks, airplanes, high explosives, machine
guns, radio, chemical warfare, etc.
The public got over it quickly enough and threw themselves into the
reckless Roaring 20s that were full of hedonistic abandon. Before the
crash in 1929, pretty much everyone believed that prosperity and good
times would last forever. They had assurances from all quarters that
the world was done with war, that everyone had learned his lesson and
would never let it happen again. With 10 years of economic boom
behind them, they also had assurances that economic prosperity was a
permanent ixture. Life was good. Capitalism was great. Peace and
prosperity for all. America was living the dream!
However, because of the technology used in the Great War, the
engineering profession was suffering from a mixture of guilt and
societal angst. Technology that they had collectively invented had gone
terribly wrong and resulted in the mechanized death of millions.
Furthermore, they reasoned, society had been fundamentally changed
with the inclusion of technology, and politicians were obviously
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 of engineering blended with various shades of Comte’s
positivism, the brainchild of Technocracy was born.
The intellectual and philosophical stew that fed this brainchild was
seasoned with progressive thought, Positivism, Taylorism and Taylor’s
Scienti ic Method of management, Darwinism and eugenics. (According
to the American Journal of Sociology, “Eugenics is the science which
deals with all in luences that improve the inborn qualities of a race;
also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage.”)16
Furthermore, thanks to Auguste Comte and his “science of society”,
the early Technocrats believed that they could engineer society by
applying the Scienti ic Method in the same manner as it was applied to
physical science. This was a mistake, but one that was never
recognized as such, even to this day. To them, the simple fact that the
world was becoming even more techno-centric only fueled the urgency
of their discussions and planning for Technocracy. They alone could
save the world from itself while politicians were certain to just make it
worse.
By 1921, Frederick Taylor’s masterpiece, The Principles of Scienti ic
Management (1911), had 10 years to in luence business, government
and society. The essence of Scienti ic Management was
Science, not rule of thumb.
Harmony, not discord.
Cooperation, not individualism.
Maximum output, in place of restricted output.
The development of each man to his greatest ef iciency and
prosperity.17
Taylor’s theories not only captivated the U.S. but the entire world,
including the U.S.S.R and Germany. Taylor’s famous time-and-motion
studies proved that workers could be driven to a level of ef iciency and
production never before realized.
One historian concluded that Taylor
…asked the public to impose scienti ic management on reluctant
businesses and unions for the good of the whole. Taylorites began to
argue that the system promised a shift from arbitrary power to
scienti ic administration not only in the factory but in society as well.
Such a shift would bring about the realization of social harmony
through, as one young Taylorite engineer wrote, “the organization of
human affairs in harmony with natural laws”… Such ideas were heady
stuff for engineers.18
When the Great War started in 1914, Taylorism was reaching its
initial nadir just in time to be applied to wartime economies. Factories
cranked out weapons with precision assembly lines staffed by robot-
like humans performing the same repetitive tasks up to 16 hours per
day. Taylor had leveled the playing ield, however, because all the
various combatants had learned and implemented the same
techniques.
Indeed, engineers had a lot to think about in the early 1920s. In the
end, they essentially concluded that it was not their fault that
technology had failed the world, but rather the fault of ignorant and
corrupt politicians who did not know how to handle what they did not
understand.
By the fall of 1919, it was Thorstein Veblen who began to call for a
revolution of engineers. As co-founder and professor of The New
School in New York, Veblen’s ideas were not yet well-known by many
engineers, but they caught the attention of a radical young upstart by
the name of Howard Scott, who would remain an advocate for
Technocracy for the rest of his life. In fact, it was Scott who later
founded Technocracy, Inc. in early 1934.
Thus, in 1919, Veblen and Scott started a group they called the
“Technical Alliance” to organize a “soviet of technicians”. The Alliance
failed miserably to attract many like-minded engineers, but Veblen
continued to sponsor discussions about his proposed revolution at The
New School. By 1921, Veblen was ready to try again and did so with the
release of his Engineers and the Price System that took all the blinders
off. He plainly stated,
If the country’s productive industry were competently organized as a
systematic whole, and were then managed by competent technicians
with an eye single to maximum production of goods and services
instead of, as now, being manhandled by ignorant business men with
an eye single to maximum pro its; the resulting output of goods and
services would doubtless exceed the current output by several hundred
percent.19
Howard Scott was truly a disciple of Veblen at this point but not
without even more radical ideas of his own. It was Scott who irst
proposed that an energy-based value system would eliminate pro it
motives and provide a purely functional basis for the organization of
society.
By 1922, as the early organizing efforts came to an end, Veblen
moderated his activism and Scott essentially dropped out of sight. He
continued to stump for his radical theories in restaurants,
coffeehouses and speakeasies in his hometown of Greenwich Village in
Lower Manhattan. Nobody took him very seriously, and many
considered him a boorish, yet lamboyant, blowhard. Greenwich
Village, known as a bohemian artist and non-conformist community,
was perfectly it for Scott and even led some to call him the “Bohemian
Engineer”.
Columbia University
In 1932, Walter Rautenstrauch was a professor at Columbia
University and headed the Department of Industrial Engineering which
he had previously founded as the irst such department in the nation. It
is not certain how Scott and Rautenstrauch met, but it was
immediately clear to both of them that they shared a common interest
in promoting a system of Technocracy run by engineers, scientists and
technicians. Scott, being a minor igure from Greenwich Village, latched
onto the prestigious Rautenstrauch as his ticket to stardom.
Rautenstrauch approached Nicholas Murray Butler, the president of
Columbia, for a green light to complete an industrial survey of North
America, which Scott had started years before with his failed Technical
Alliance. Both Columbia and Butler prided themselves for being on the
cutting-edge of progressive radicalism, and Technocracy was
appealing. Thus, with one stroke of the pen, Scott had Columbia’s
facilities at his disposal as well as its prestigious reputation. It was
later revealed that Scott had misrepresented his own academic
credentials, never having graduated from a recognized university, so it
is understandable why Scott viewed this new association as the biggest
break of his life.
In the early fall of 1932, Rautenstrauch and Scott hastily formed the
Committee on Technocracy to supervise the industrial survey project.
Its members were drawn from other Columbia University educators
and included another soon-to-be key player in Scott’s life, M. King
Hubbert. Scott became the “consulting technologist” on the Committee,
and it was his methodology that would be used to conduct the survey.
Financial resources were hard to come by during The Great
Depression, so one of Scott’s colleagues convinced the Architects’
Emergency Relief Committee of New York to fund the project by
making dozens of unemployed architects available to work on the
survey at Columbia. This engineering workforce was likely housed in
the basement of Hamilton Hall at Columbia where other temporary
projects had been located in previous years.
In a 2006 biography on Nicholas Murray Butler, Michael Rosenthal
revealed what happened next:
Enthralled by Scott’s messianic fervor, Butler invited him in 1932 to
come to Columbia, working in the Department of Industrial
Engineering, to conduct research into the history of American
industrial development as seen through a complex series of energy
measurements. When it became known in August that Scott and his
fellow technocrats were established at 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 it was clear that he was excited to have captured it for
Columbia.20
 This instant notoriety had a drug-like effect on Scott who already
suffered from an over-in lated view of his own importance. After his
death in 1970, a Canadian paper ran a feature on the Technocracy
movement and Scott’s role in it:
Howard Scott, the messiah-like originator of Technocracy, a graduate
of Columbia University, acted as Director-in-Chief until his death in
1970 at the age of 80.
He was a genius, Service says with the same touch of awe in his voice.
He was a man for another world, a man who spoke to the sum total of
conditioned brains in the price system. Scott was the irst of many on
earth to co-relate the symbols of technology, science and energy into a
working system.21
It may not have been Scott’s idea to position himself as a messiah, but
neither did he do anything to discourage it. He was also not a graduate
of Columbia University but apparently did nothing to correct that
assumption either. Scott was much more the promoter than the
engineer, and promoters are often known to bask in accolades and
unsolicited attention.
Just three months later in January 1933, the Committee on
Technocracy abruptly fell apart. Although the industrial survey was still
incomplete, Scott began to reveal his pre-conceived ideas on
Technocracy as a social system, being fully convinced that the results of
his survey would completely support his conclusions. It is important to
remember that Scott’s radical ideas about Technocracy were developed
and tempered at the feet of his mentor, Thorstein Veblen.
Rautenstrauch had taken a different path, studying and applying
Taylor’s scienti ic management principles and those of Henry Gantt,
who had worked closely with Taylor in the 1890s. Gantt also had
experience with Veblen, but not to the extent of Scott. Second,
Rautenstrauch was a well-educated and highly respected engineer with
a splendid reputation; Scott didn’t have a degree at all which also
explained the serious laws in his design skills and methodology. As
Rautenstrauch’s con idence in Scott was shaken, he was doubly
alarmed by Scott’s radical ideas being expressed even before the
Industrial Survey was completed. For Rautenstrauch, prescribing
application for any project was never proposed until all the “evidence”
was gathered and analyzed. Third, Rautenstrauch was uneasy with the
blazing limelight that Scott brought to the project.
Some reporters began to more closely investigate Scott’s background
and educational credentials, and their negative indings proved to be
the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. The press
subsequently turned on Scott and, hence, Columbia University. The
head of Columbia, Nicholas Murray Butler, cherished a positive
limelight, but Scott was giving the whole university a very large black
eye. The entire project was summarily forced to leave the campus.
It is important to note that there were two forks of Technocracy at
this point. Scott would go on to create the more radical Technocracy,
Inc., in late 1933 while Rautenstrauch and the other professors stayed
on at Columbia with a less-radical form of academic Technocracy that
continued the core concepts but not the name; to them, the word
Technocracy had become toxic and simply was not used again for fear
of being re-associated with Howard Scott. This hush-hush was
reinforced by the press when Randolph Hearst, who controlled a
signi icant portion of the nation’s media at the time, released a memo
forbidding staff reporters from mentioning the word “Technocracy”
under penalty of being immediately ired. Scott did salvage one
relationship with a young geophysics instructor at Columbia who had
been eager to join the Committee when it was irst announced: M. King
Hubbert.
By early 1933, humiliated and accused, Scott’s personal life went from
bad to worse, hitting bottom in March 1933. An unpaid judgment of
$1,640 that had been levied against him in 1923 came home to roost,
and he was called to account. Still unable to pay, Scott testi ied before a
judge that he owned no signi icant property and that he was currently
living at the apartment of M. King Hubbert in Greenwich Village. He
also admitted to the judge that he did not have a college degree.22
Casting personal defeat aside, Scott saw opportunity when he
realized that he had raised a signi icant following of radicals around
the U.S. and Canada who were enthralled with his vision for
Technocracy and didn’t care whether Columbia University was involved
or not. Neither did they care that Scott was personally bankrupt and an
incompetent business manager. They wanted change, even radical
change, now!
During the latter part of 1933, with Scott still imposing on M. King
Hubbert for living arrangements, they made their move. Hubbert was a
brilliant and well-educated geophysicist who was willing to work with
Scott and provided a continuing semblance of credibility to Scott’s
radicalism. Under Scott’s direction, Hubbert’s scienti ic skills and
knowledge of engineering could further educate him and provide a
solid base from which to travel the country stumping for Technocracy.
As they conspired to carry Technocracy further, Scott and Hubbert
compiled articles of incorporation in late 1933 and subsequently iled
them in early 1934 in New York to create a membership organization
called Technocracy, Inc.
Society was ripe for Technocracy during the depths of the Great
Depression. It certainly appeared that capitalism was dead.
Joblessness, de lation, hunger, anger at politicians and capitalists, and
other social stresses had people begging for an explanation as to what
went wrong and what could be done to ix it. Technocracy, Inc. had both:
Capitalism had died a natural death, and a new Technocracy-oriented
society would save them. The engineers, scientists and technicians
who would operate this Technocratic Utopia would eliminate all waste
and corruption, people would only have to work 20 hours per week, and
every person would have a job! Abundance would be everywhere. The
only price for this was that they had to get rid of the politicians and the
political institutions and let the technocrats run things instead.
Nobody protested because most already wanted to throw the
politicians out, whom they had already blamed for the Depression.
This sentiment was reinforced in a book by Harry A. Porter released
in later 1932 titled Roosevelt and Technocracy, where he assured that
Just as the Reformation established Religious Freedom, just as the
Declaration of Independence brought about our Political Freedom,
Technocracy promises Economic Freedom.23
Porter’s plan included abandoning the gold standard, suspending the
stock exchanges and nationalizing railroads and public utilities.
Freedom notwithstanding, Porter then called for President-elect
Franklin D. Roosevelt to be sworn in as Dictator rather than President
so that he could overturn the existing economic system in favor of
Technocracy:
Drastic as these changes from the present order of things may be, they
will serve their purpose if only to pave the way for the Economic
Revolution – and Technocracy.24
Roosevelt didn’t take Porter up on declaring himself dictator, but he
did abolish the gold standard, con iscated all the citizens’ gold, and
nationalized certain industries. Otherwise, the egocentric Roosevelt
was happy enough to implement many of Technocracy’s other ideas,
but there was no way he was going to hand the country over to
Technocracy’s technical cadre.
Technocracy, Inc.
Depression notwithstanding, Howard Scott presented a utopian
dream that technology held the key to relieve man from the drudgery of
labor. Other critics might think that he merely used that promise to
deceive more people into becoming members of his almost cult-like
following. After all, a free lunch sounds mighty pleasing to someone out
of work and with a family to feed. Second, he knew perfectly well how to
leverage the public’s increasing anger against politicians, bankers and
industrialists to his own advantage. Finally, there was the smoke-and-
mirror aspect of the incomplete and faulty science that Scott used to
convince people that Technocracy could actually work to everyone’s
bene it. Such a phenomenon was reminiscent of the “magic elixir”
medicinal cure-alls sold during the 1800s that promised to cure any
and all diseases that one could possibly have.
With the memory of the Great War still fresh in the minds of many, the
beginning of World War II on September 1, 1939 was earth-shaking.
Germany’s invasion of Poland all but guaranteed to involve all of
Europe. Japan and China were already at war with each other, adding to
the risk of an all-out World War. Thus, the momentum and impact of
Technocracy, Inc. sharply waned into the 1940s, and it never regained
its former attraction again. However, during those intervening years,
between 1933 and 1939, the march of Technocracy, Inc. left an indelible
mark on history. Unfortunately, historians recorded very little of this
era 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 a manifesto that
would clearly communicate their vision to the public. Working
feverishly to meet the public’s demand for more information, they
completed and published the 280 page Technocracy Study Course25 that
same year. It established a detailed framework for Technocracy in
terms of energy production, distribution and usage. Under Scott’s close
supervision, it was actually Hubbert who penned most of the pages. As
far as Scott was concerned, this was the irst full expression of what he
really had in mind for Technocracy; previously, only bits and pieces had
been revealed here and there in speeches and newspaper articles. The
public demanded more, and independent of Scott’s organizational
efforts, many study groups had spontaneously popped up around the
nation and in Canada. The word Technocracy was on the lips of literally
hundreds of thousands of people. Scott knew that he had a limited
amount of time to convert these groups into the membership rolls of
Technocracy, Inc. To more fully understand what Scott and Hubbert had
to offer, we must look carefully at the Technocracy Study Course.
Technocracy Study Course
This treatise was speci ically designed as a study course to ful ill the
needs of individual groups that were meeting in homes, halls, churches
and granges across the U.S. and Canada. Without top-down guidance,
different groups were headed in different directions. The big question
is, what was the ideology that Scott and Hubbert intended to implant?
The Preface of the Study Course details some basic elements of the
organization itself:
Technocracy, Inc. is a non-pro it membership organization
incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. It is a
Continental Organization. It is not a inancial racket or a political
party.
Technocracy, Inc. operates only on the North American Continent
through the structure of its own Continental Headquarters, Area
 Controls, Regional Divisions, Sections and Organizers as a self-
disciplined self-controlled organization….
Technocracy declares that this Continent has a rendezvous with
Destiny; that this Continent must decide between Abundance and
Chaos within the next few years. Technocracy realizes that this
decision must be made by a mass movement of North Americans
trained and self-disciplined, capable of operating a technological
mechanism of production and distribution on the Continent when the
present Price System becomes impotent to operate….
Technocracy offers the speci ications and the blueprints of
Continental physical operations for the production of abundance for
every citizen.26
Here we see, irst, an organizational structure with an intensive
hierarchy that roughly resembles a para-military organization:
Headquarters, Controls, Divisions, Sections, etc. Second, it is
interesting to note that they had to assure readers that Technocracy,
Inc. was “not a inancial racket or political party”; apparently they had
been accused of both. Third, the Study Course is a blueprint for the
future. As such, a blueprint normally contains diagrams of various
elevations and details such as are necessary for the complete and
forthwith construction of a building or structure. Thus, we should treat
the Technocracy Study Course with due respect that its purpose is very
clear; Scott and Hubbert intended to build a new society that did not
currently exist.
In the Preface, a glimpse into the scope of Technocracy is seen:
Technocracy is dealing with social phenomena in the widest
sense of the word; this includes not only actions of human beings, but
also everything which directly or indirectly affects their actions.
Consequently, the studies of Technocracy embrace practically the
whole ield of science and industry. Biology, climate, natural
resources, and industrial equipment all enter into the social picture.27
[Emphasis added]
There is no doubt that Technocracy, Inc. intended to be an agent of
change for a new social structure, although there was nothing that
quali ied either Scott or Hubbert to play the role of sociologists. That
did not hinder them in the slightest. Simply put, they believed that the
actions of human beings, both direct and indirect, were the root cause
of societal problems and that they were directly related to biology,
climate and natural resources. The absence of enlightened scienti ic
management would doom mankind to certain destruction. It is not
coincidental that the most visible and manipulative modern agents of
change - Sustainable Development, Agenda 21, global warming, the
U.N.’s green economy and the modern ecology movement, etc. - all hold
to the same underlying assumptions.
Scott’s version of Technocracy was intensely focused on energy.
Whether human or mechanical, all work involves the expenditure of
energy. Humans and beasts of burden eat food, and machines consume
electricity, gas, oil, etc. This emphasis on energy was most certainly
ine-tuned by the presence of M. King Hubbert who was a well-
educated and aspiring geophysicist trained in energy-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 oil would
peak and go into decline as demand and consumption increased to an
unsustainable level. It is also not coincidental that Hubbert is often
revered as a “founding father” of the modern environmental and
Sustainable Development movements.
According to Scott and Hubbert, the distribution of energy resources
and the goods they produce must be monitored and measured in order
for their system to work. Every engineer knows that you cannot control
what you cannot monitor and measure. Both Scott and Hubbert were
keenly aware that constant monitoring and precise measuring would
enable them to control society with scienti ic precision.
It is not surprising then that the irst ive out of seven requirements
for Technocracy were:

Register on a continuous 24 hour-per-day basis the total net

conversion of energy.
By means of the registration of energy converted and
consumed, make possible a balanced load.
Provide a continuous inventory of all production and
 consumption.
Provide a speci ic registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods
and services, where produced and where used.
Provide speci ic registration of the consumption of each
individual, plus a record and description of the individual.28

In 1934, such technology did not exist. Time was on the Technocrat’s
side, however, because this technology does exist today, and it is being
rapidly implemented to do exactly what Scott and Hubbert speci ied,
namely, to exhaustively monitor, measure and control every facet of
individual activity and every ampere of energy delivered and
consumed in the life of such individual. The end result of centralized
control of all society was clearly spelled out on page 240:
The end-products attained by a high-energy social mechanism on the
North American Continent will be:
(a) A high physical standard of living, (b) a high standard of public
health, (ç) a minimum of unnecessary labor, (d) a minimum of
wastage of non-replaceable resources, (e) an educational system to
train the entire younger generation indiscriminately as regards all
considerations other than inherent ability - a Continental system of
human conditioning.
The achievement of these ends will result from a centralized
control with a social organization built along functional lines…29
[Emphasis added]
A word must be said about the above mention of the North American
continent. Both Scott and Hubbert viewed the entire continent, from
Mexico to Canada, as the logical minimum unit for Technocracy. They
never speci ied how such a merger might take place. If Roosevelt had
become dictator as proposed by Porter30, perhaps he might have led a
military campaign to conquer our two closest neighbors. Whatever the
case, it was presumptuous from the start to assume that Canada and
Mexico would willingly participate in Technocracy’s utopian scheme,
giving up their respective political systems simply because a group of
radical engineers suggested it. What is particularly disturbing is Scott’s
and Hubbert’s total disregard for the nation-state and national
sovereignty; they would have wiped away both with the stroke of a pen.
It is not coincidental that today’s call for a New World Order is
predicated on the same assumed necessity of eradicating national
sovereignty and the structure of the nation-state.
The Technocracy Study Course also called for money to be replaced by
Energy Certi icates which would be issued to all citizens at the start of
each new energy accounting period. These certi icates could be spent
for goods and services during the de ined period but would expire just
as a new allotment for the next period would be sent. Thus, the
accumulation of private wealth would not be possible. Neither Scott
nor Hubbert viewed private property or accumulated wealth as
allowable in a Technocracy. After all, it was capitalism that caused all
the trouble in the irst place, and the accumulation of wealth due to
ownership of private property was the primary culprit. In a
Technocracy, then, all property, resources and the means of production
would be held in a public trust for the bene it of all. They reasoned that
since all needs for work, leisure and health were to be so abundantly
met, people would willingly trade private property for the utopian
dream.
By 1937, the topic of Technocracy had been discussed, analyzed,
argued over, rehashed and regurgitated. This was an inevitable
outcome given the complex implications of trading one economic
system for another. People’s fears were ignited by the prospect of such
change, and so there was never an end to heated interchanges. By this
time, however, Technocracy, Inc. inally produced a concise de inition
that adequately revealed what it was really all about:
Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scienti ic
operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute
goods and services to the entire population of this continent. For the
irst time in human history it will be done as a scienti ic, technical,
engineering problem.31 [Emphasis added]
William Knight
It is not certain how William Knight was originally introduced to
Howard Scott, but it was likely through the Technical Alliance that was
created by Veblen and Scott in 1919. Scott thought highly enough of
Knight to appoint him to be Director of Operations of Technocracy, Inc.
Knight was attributed to have been an associate of the famous
electrical engineer and radical socialist, Charles Steinmetz, who is
largely credited for his theory and development of alternating current
that helped to enable the industrial revolution. Steinmetz was born in
Germany but was forced to lee because of his radical essays on
socialism, making his way to Greenwich Village in time to join
ideological forces with Thorstein Veblen, Howard Scott and the other
members of the Technical Alliance in 1919.
Steinmetz was de initely a radical player and decidedly pro-
communist. According to one historian, Steinmetz
...saw electri ication as the chief agency of Socialism and on Lenin’s
seizure of power he offered to assist “in the technical sphere and
particularly in the matter of electri ication in a practical way, and
with advice.” Lenin replied regretting that he could not take advantage
of his offer but enclosing his picture, which Steinmetz promptly placed
in a place of honor in his laboratory.32
If Knight were present at meetings of the Technical Alliance, it would
have been Steinmetz, Veblen and Scott who shaped his views of
Technocracy. Even though there were differences of opinion on the
implementation of Technocracy, Knight apparently remained a loyal
underling for the rest of his life, in spite of Technocracy’s decline in
popularity after the 1930s. However, there is more to Knight’s
involvement, as one historian notes,
Scott placed a man named William Knight in charge of political
organization. Knight was an aeronautical engineer who had been
employed by various American subsidiaries of the German aircraft
industry. Knight was clearly a Hitler supporter, and steered
Technocracy, Inc. toward the Nazi model. Scott began to wear a
double breasted black suit, gray shirt and blue neck tie. The
Technocracy, Inc. rank and ile, in turn, donned gray uniforms and
adopted fascist style salutes of greeting. They also deployed leets of
metallic gray automobiles and rigid marches and formations. Knight
was convinced that for Technocracy to move forward it would have to
recognize that it was a revolutionary movement. Despite Scott’s
 embrace of his new authoritarian image, however, Knight was
frustrated at Scott’s lack of charisma and the decisiveness needed in a
modern “Leader”.33 [Emphasis added]
Original photographs of Technocracy, Inc.’s meetings and activities
con irm the rigidly enforced dress code, and while sympathizers may
have thought it to be clever, it was very disconcerting to non-
Technocrats. Making a visual connection between Technocrats and the
rise of Hitler in Nazi Germany was not dif icult for most Americans.
Knight lobbied Scott to turn Technocracy, Inc. into a revolution, but
Scott refused believing that the certain collapse of capitalism would
automatically launch Technocracy into power. In any case, Scott hated
politicians and the political system and viewed a “political revolution”
as just another expression of politics. Historian William Aiken had this
to say about Knight:
He thought Scott the “greatest prophet since Jesus Christ” but was
also certain that “he will never lead a revolution except in Greenwich
Village.” In Knight’s view “Howard is not made out of the stuff of a
Lenin, a Mussolini or a Hitler. We must have men who know what a
revolution means and how to bring it about.”34
History does not record much more about Knight, but we can be
thankful that his strategy did not prevail and that he remained a loyal
follower of Scott, not otherwise attempting an end-run around him to
promote open revolution. Technocracy might well have succeeded if
Scott had adopted Knight’s political theory for action.
In any case, American democracy was found to be unwilling to
entertain Technocracy, and it was soundly repudiated for all of these
reasons:

National sovereignty and the Constitutional form of

government were not dispensable.
Nobody was willing to give up private property or the
possibility of accumulating private wealth.
The apparent similarities between Technocracy, Inc. and Nazi
fascism were abhorrent to most Americans.
The grandiose promises of Technocracy were seen as so
 much “free lunch”, and toward the end of the Great
Depression, everybody knew from experience that there was
no such thing.

Nevertheless, major portions of the Technocracy platform quietly

made their way into Roosevelt’s New Deal35 and as World War II
progressed, the American public quickly forgot about Technocracy, Inc.
and Howard Scott. During WW II from 1940-1943, Technocracy, Inc.
was banned in Canada due to accusations of subversive activity. As M.
King Hubbert’s career advanced with major oil companies, he found it
in his own interest to formally disassociate himself from Technocracy
although he never renounced its principles. William Knight followed
his “messiah” until his death. The current of ices of Technocracy, Inc.
are located in the remote town of Ferndale, Washington state, where
many remaining historical documents are stored.
At Columbia University, however, the radical tenets of Technocracy
continued in the halls of academia. Columbia has always prided itself
for academic interaction among professors, departments and
disciplines, and interact they did. Some 40 years later in 1973,
Technocracy was destined to reemerge at Columbia under a new name,
a new sponsorship and an expanded strategy to dominate the world
rather than just the North American continent.
Technocracy and the Third Reich
In both ideology and practice, Technocracy found better soil in Nazi
Germany than it did in the United States. At the time, the word
“Technocracy” was not yet anathema to the nation’s press. For instance
in 1933, the New York Times correctly tied together Technocracy and
Nazi leaders:
A strong but non-imperialistic Germany rising to the heights of
prosperity through the proper application of technocracy was
pictured to the German masses in the usual week-end barrage of
speeches by Nazi leaders today.36 [Emphasis added]
It has been noted that Technocracy in America did not succeed due to
a lack of a social strategy with which to implement itself. This was not
the case in Germany where Technocracy had grown at the same pace
and for the same reasons as in the U.S. The German industrial machine
was well acquainted with Taylorism and the application of Scienti ic
Management. Engineering, science and research were highly esteemed
as a gateway to future prosperity and strength. Germany felt the pain of
the Great Depression to a worse degree than the U.S. because it had
never fully recovered from the dislocations and consequences of World
War One. Thus, Germany was driven to excel in all areas of
advancement. Its technocratic movement that had started in the 1920s
was fully asserting itself by the time Hitler ascended to power.
Dr. Gottfried Feder, secretary to the Minister of the Economy, echoed
Technocratic thinking in a 1933 speech before the National Socialists
of Danzig:
The liberalistic-capitalistic age long ago exhausted the possibility of
consuming production made possible by great technical developments.
Thereupon man became the slave of the machine. National socialism,
on the other hand, realizes that mighty technical tasks and
possibilities have remained which can be solved only by the planned
mobilization of technique for the battle against unemployment… the
wealth of every people is measured by its capacity to organize its
resources.37
An earlier New York Times article documented some similarities and
differences between the German and American Technocracy
movements:
Germany has her own technocratic movement in the Technokratische
Union with headquarters in Berlin. Although it has taken its name
from its American counterpart, it is not an offshoot of the latter but an
indigenous growth. Nevertheless, German technocracy, which has just
taken organized form, agrees with the American brand on all but two
major points.38
First, the Germans didn’t buy into Scott’s system of energy credits,
which they termed “electric dollars”. Second, they stressed humanism
as the religion of technocracy, whereas Scott wanted nothing to do with
any kind of religion. However, the points of agreement are revealing:
“Like their American economic kin, they are against capitalism, against
the pro it system and against the gold standard.”39 These
commonalities gave reason for more-than-casual communications
between Scott and his German counterparts:
The German technocratic union is in touch with Howard Scott in New
York and dreams of creating an international technocratic
organization, which, indeed, its leaders deem indispensable for
realizing the technocratic ideal.40
Although there was no internal record of Scott’s conversations with
German technocrats, it is clear that they existed. However, since the
Germans were proud inventors and rabid nationalists, extensive effort
was expended to position themselves as the sole arbiters of rational
Technocracy, even though they worked in the mostly irrational system
of National Socialism. The German version needed to be sold to its
citizens as “made-in-Germany”. The facts undermined the reality of the
matter. Three years of the German journal of Technocracy, Technokratie,
was surveyed and found to contain a heavy concentration of translated
reprints from Technocracy journals in America.41 As a submerged
movement, Technocracy lived on in Germany, but as a public
movement, it was summarily axed by the German government in 1935:
The journal Technokratie and with it the German Technocratic Society
came to a sudden end in 1935, ironically just when opportunities for
technocrats within the Nationalist State began to improve. The Third
Reich had room for individual technocrats, but not for a technocratic
movement.42
Thus, as in America, when the movement of Technocracy collided with
the existing political structure, it was rejected. In the United States, it
was Roosevelt and his New Deal, and in Germany it was Hitler and Nazi
Socialism. Political rejection had no impact on Technocracy because
technocrats believed that their vision of the future was all but
guaranteed, regardless of political resistance. If Technocracy could be
likened to a submarine, it simply closed the hatch and submerged in
order to continue its mission unseen and undetected. Of the former
members of the formal movement, there is no record of any
repudiation of their technocratic ideology, methodologies or practices;
they simply continued on as before, communicating in private but
without a meeting hall.
 Renneberg and Walker’s detailed study on Technocracy and National
Socialism concluded with this blunt statement:
Technocracy, like technology, is fundamentally ambivalent and proved
compatible with the most extreme aspects of German Fascism.
Without technocracy, the most barbaric, irrational and backward-
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 and
efforts to create a “master race” would have been impossible .43
After Germany’s defeat in WWII, many of the direct perpetrators of
“crimes against humanity” were brought to justice during the famous
Nuremberg trials. The Technocrats, however, as indirect enablers were
not seen as ones who should be held accountable for anything, and
indeed, they became an important part of the war reparations process
and were carted off to other Western nations to resume their scienti ic
and engineering duties in the service of other governments.
Indeed, American technocrats and sympathizers within the U.S.
Government were quick to rescue and provide cover for their German
counterparts. A top-secret program called Operation Paperclip
commenced in 1944 that sought to bring top Nazi scientists to America
under secret military contracts while white-washing their past and
high-ranking connections with Nazi Socialism. Annie Jacobson notes in
her recent 575-page book on Operation Paperclip,
The program had a benign public face and a classi ied body of secrets
and lies. “I’m mad on technology,” Adolf Hitler told his inner circle at a
dinner party in 1942, and in the aftermath of the German surrender
more than sixteen hundred of Hitler’s technologists would become
America’s own.44
These were the same technologists who eagerly gave Hitler almost
total victory over all of Europe!
The famous rocket scientist Wernher von Braun, for instance, was a
prominent member of the Nazi party and also a member of Hitler’s SS.
Under Hitler’s command, he ran an underground slave labor facility
where his rockets were being built. After his relocation (along with
other members of his engineering team) to the U.S. via Operation
Paperclip, von Braun went on to design the rockets that put America’s
spaceship on the moon, but not before becoming a naturalized citizen
in 1955.
In another example, the inventor of the ear thermometer, Dr. Theodor
H. Benzinger, worked at the Naval Medical Research Institute from
1947 to 1970. He ultimately held 40 patents on his inventions. When
Benzinger passed in 1999 at the age of 94, he was eulogized in glowing
terms by the New York Times, but not one word was mentioned about
the work he performed on concentration camp prisoners in Nazi
Germany during WWII.
In a more transparent setting, devoid of Operation Paperclip cloaking,
both men would have likely stood trial at Nuremberg with the rest of
their war criminal associates. Instead, the European brand of
Technocracy quietly melded back into its American counterpart and
continued on as if nothing had happened.
Rebirth
Whatever Technocracy represented in the 1930s and earlier, it was
cleverly regurgitated in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book Between Two
Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. This book was never a
“best seller” on any literary list, but it was the book that caught the eye
and admiration of David Rockefeller. The Rockefeller dynasty, and
David in particular, had always had a dif icult time maintaining good
public relations with the American public. Collectively, the Rockefellers
represented the global-minded Eastern Establishment that was bent
on selling American sovereignty to international interests. Simply put,
Rockefeller needed a young blood academic like Brzezinski in order to
justify his own globalist dreams.
The fact that Brzezinski was a professor at Columbia University
opens up a necessary side note regarding the connection between the
Rockefeller family and Columbia. In 1928, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. leased
the ground to develop the future Rockefeller Center in New York City -
from Columbia University. In fact, Rockefeller took on a 27 year lease
with three 21-year options to renew, for a total of 87 years lease. The
lease was cut short in 1985 after 52 years when Columbia agreed to sell
the 11.7 acres of land under the Rockefeller Center to the Rockefeller
Group for a tidy all-cash sum of $400 million. It was a record price for
any single parcel ever sold in New York City. To put this windfall into
perspective, the total value of Columbia’s existing endowment at the
time was reported to be only $683 million. When adding to that sum 52
years of lease payments, reported to be $11.1 million per year in 1973
onward, the Rockefeller clan can be seen as a major benefactor of
Columbia University, if not the major benefactor in the 20th century.
But Rockefeller family involvement with Columbia predated the
Rockefeller Center leasing arrangement by at least several years. In
1919, John D. Rockefeller inanced the building of Teachers College
Columbia University with a $1 million one-time gift, which was noted
at the time as being the largest gift ever made to an institution for
training teachers.45
Understanding these connections may explain why Rockefeller
turned to Columbia when he picked Brzezinski to be his principal
ideologue for the next 40 plus years. It is inconceivable that both were
unaware of the history of Technocracy at Columbia during the 1930s. In
his book, Between Two Ages, Brzezinski expanded upon the original
Technocracy that was originally limited to the North American
continent, to one of a global nature but with virtually identical ends:
[The technetronic era] involves the gradual appearance of a more
controlled and directed society. Such a society would be dominated by
an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly
superior scienti ic know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of
traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its
political ends by using the latest modern techniques for in luencing
public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and
control.46
Brzezinski gave a succinct background that led up to his Technetronic
Era. He wrote that mankind had moved through three great stages of
evolution and was in the middle of the fourth and inal stage. The irst
stage he described as “religious”, combining a heavenly “universalism
provided by the acceptance of the idea that man’s destiny is essentially
in God’s hands” with an earthly “narrowness derived from massive
ignorance, illiteracy, and a vision con ined to the immediate
environment.”47
The second stage was nationalism, stressing Christian equality
before the law, which “marked another giant step in the progressive
rede inition of man’s nature and place in our world.” The third stage
was Marxism, which, said Brzezinski, “represents a further vital and
creative stage in the maturing of man’s universal vision.” The fourth
and inal stage was Brzezinski’s Technetronic Era, or the “ideal of
rational humanism on a global scale - the result of American-
Communist evolutionary transformations.”48
In considering our current structure of governance, Brzezinski stated,
Tension is unavoidable as man strives to assimilate the new into the
framework of the old. For a time the established framework resiliently
integrates the new by adapting it in a more familiar shape. But at
some point the old framework becomes overloaded. The newer input
can no longer be rede ined into traditional forms, and eventually it
asserts itself with compelling force. Today, though, the old framework
of international politics - with their spheres of in luence, military
alliances between nation-states, the iction of sovereignty, doctrinal
con licts arising from nineteenth century crises - is clearly no longer
compatible with reality.49
One of the most important “frameworks” in the world, and especially
to Americans, is the Constitution of the United States. It was this
document that outlined and enabled the most prosperous nation in the
history of the world. Was our sovereignty really “ iction”? Was the
American vision no longer compatible with reality? Brzezinski further
stated,
The approaching two-hundredth anniversary of the Declara-tion of
Independence could justify the call for a national constitutional
convention to reexamine the nation’s formal institutional framework.
Either 1976 or 1989 - the two-hundredth anniversary of the
Constitution - could serve as a suitable target date culminating a
national dialogue on the relevance of existing arrangements....
Realism, however, forces us to recognize that the necessary political
innovation will not come from direct constitutional reform, desirable
as that would be. The needed change is more likely to develop
 incrementally and less overtly...in keeping with the American tradition
of blurring distinctions between public and private institutions.50
In Brzezinski’s Technetronic Era then, the “nation-state as a
fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal
creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are
acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political
concepts of the nation-state.”51
Brzezinski’s philosophy clearly pointed forward to Richard
Gardner’s Hard Road to World Order that appeared in Foreign Affairs in
1974, where Gardner stated,
In short, the “house of world order” would have to be built from the
bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great
“booming, buzzing confusion”, to use William James’ famous
description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty,
eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-
fashioned frontal assault.52
That former approach which had produced few successes during the
1950s and 1960s was being traded for a velvet sledge-hammer. It
would make little noise but would still drive the spikes of globalization
deep into the heart of nations around the world, including the United
States. Indeed, the Trilateral Commission, jointly established by
Brzezinski and Rockefeller, was the chosen vehicle that inally got the
necessary traction to actually create their New International Economic
Order.
In over 40 years since the founding of the Trilateral Commission, the
historical record clearly testi ies to its success. The applied doctrines
of Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and the energy Smart Grid that
have resulted from Trilateral interactions testify to their ideological
grounding in historic Technocracy.
15 William E. Akin, Technocracy and the American Dream, (University of California Press, 1977), p. 112.
16 Galton, Francis, “Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims”, American Journal of Sociology, (July 1904).
17 Frederic Taylor, Principles of Scientific Management, (Harper & Brothers , 1911).
18 Akin, p. 10
19 Thorstein Veblen, Engineers and the Price System, (BW Huebsch, 1921), pp. 120-121.
20 Michael Rosenthal, Nicholas Miraculous: The Amazing Career of the Redoubtable Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler
(Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2006), p.422.
21 “No Government, No Politicians, No Taxes”, The Montreal Gazette, Sept. 14, 1974.
22 New York Times, March 5, 1933.
23 Harry A. Porter, Roosevelt and Technocracy, (Wetzel Publishing Company,1932) Foreward iii.
24 ibid., p.63
25 Note: The Technocracy Study Course is readily available on the Internet in a scanned format.
26 Scott and Hubbard, Technocracy Study Course, (Technocracy, Inc., 1934), p. vii.
27 Ibid., p. x.
28 Ibid., p. 232.
29 Ibid., p. 240.
30 Porter, Roosevelt and Technocracy, (Wetzel Publishing Company, 1932).
31 “What Is Technocracy?”, The Technocrat, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1938.
32 Routledge and Paul, The Rise of the Technocrats: A Social History, (W.H.G. Armytage, 1965,1965,) p. 238.
33 Patrick Glenn Zander, Right modern technology, nation, and Britain’s extreme right in the interwar period
(1919--1940), (Proquest UMI , 2009), p. 83.
34 Aiken, p. 111.
35 Armytage, p. 240.
36 “Hitler Demands Troops Lead Reich,” The New York Times, August 21, 1933.
37 Ibid.
38 “Germans Modify Our Technocracy,” The New York Times, January 22, 1933.
39 Ibid.
40 Ibid.
41 Monika Renneberg and Mark Walker, Scientists, engineers and National Socialism, Science, Technology and
National Socialism (Cambridge University Press, 1994), p.5.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid., p. 11.
44 Annie Jacobsen, Operation Paperclip, (Little Brown & Co., 2014).
45 “Rockefeller Gifts Total $530,853,632”, New York Times, May 24, 1937.
46 Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, (Viking Press, 1970), p 97.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid., p. 246.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid.
52 Richard Gardner, “The Hard Road to World Order”, Foreign Affairs, (1974), p. 558.
 CHAPTER 3
T T C
President Reagan ultimately came to understand Trilateral’s value
and invited the entire membership to a reception at the White House
in April 1984 - David Rockefeller, Memoirs, 200252
First Signs of Concern

M y interest in the Trilateral Commission started soon after the

presidential election of Jimmy Carter53 and Walter Mondale.
As a young inancial analyst and writer, I carefully followed Carter’s
initial round of appointees to the top positions in his cabinet and other
important posts. After all, Carter had made a big campaign pitch about
being an “establishment outsider” with few contacts within the
Beltway. Who would he bring to the table? As the list of appointees
piled up, I noticed that several were members in the Trilateral
Commission, whatever that was, and my curiosity was immediately
peaked. After digging up and sifting through a list of Trilateral
Commission members, and seeing over a dozen Trilateral appointees,
it became immediately obvious that some sort of coup was underway,
but what?
It was about this time that Antony C. Sutton entered my life. We both
were attending one of the irst major gold conferences in New Orleans
where he had been invited to speak about his new book, The War on
Gold. The hotel was probably too small for the size of the conference
because every area was packed with people, including the in-hotel
coffee shop where we had to eat breakfast. By the time I arrived at the
restaurant, there were no empty tables to be found. The host told me
that if I wanted to eat, he would have to seat me anywhere he could ind
an open seat at a table. Reluctantly, I followed him to a small booth
where a complete stranger was already halfway through his meal.
I had no idea who this person was and probably didn’t care too much
because I was very hungry and anxious to get off to the irst
presentation. When we introduced ourselves with small talk, I was
immediately taken by his British accent and genteel mannerisms and
found him quite easy to talk to. Within a few minutes I learned that he
was an economics professor and research fellow who had just been
forced out of The Hoover Institution for War, Peace and Revolution at
Stanford University. He was clearly shaken because academia was his
life and Stanford was his publisher; after all, they had already published
his monumental and internationally acclaimed series on the transfer of
technology from the West to the East. I later learned that when Sutton
was on a research “hunt”, he never left a single stone unturned. In fact,
his co-scholars at Hoover jokingly called him the “Hoover vacuum
cleaner” because of his voracious appetite for details.
When Sutton told me that he was forced out of Hoover by David
Packard, the president of Stanford, I immediately remembered seeing
his (Packard’s) name on the membership list of the Trilateral
Commission. Packard was also founder and chairman of Hewlett-
Packard. Apparently, Sutton’s professional research had begun to focus
on this group of people, many of whom he had researched in other
study projects. Like me, he also began to wonder why they were
popping up all over the Carter Administration. In any case, Packard
apparently decided to shut down the “vacuum cleaner” before he got
any further in his research.
When both of us realized that we were tracking the same group of
elitists, even if from different backgrounds, our conversation
immediately became intense. Both of us inished breakfast and were
still talking until others let us know we had the table to ourselves long
enough, but not before we shook hands on the very pressing need to
collaborate on getting out the story of the Trilateral Commission.
Within weeks we started a monthly newsletter, Trilateral Observer, in
order to release the initial results of our research as quickly and
smoothly as possible. After two years, we used this material to compile
and publish two books, Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II. As
more people read our material, we began to get requests for radio and
television interviews. Before Carter’s term was completed, we had
appeared on well over 350 radio programs all over the country.
The crowning media event was my appearance on the Larry King
Show in Washington, DC, where he was a late-night host for the largest
radio network in the nation, Mutual Broadcasting. In fact, I sat across
the table from Charles Heck, who was the Executive Director of the
Trilateral Commission at the time. What was supposed to be a one-
hour point-counterpoint debate with Heck stretched into a three-hour
marathon. To Larry King’s astonishment, the switchboards were lit up
and the callers were angrily attacking Mr. Heck as he shared what the
Commission was attempting to do. Since most callers didn’t have their
facts straight, I was able to gently correct them and lay out the actual
record, with direct quotes from Trilaterals themselves and their
Trilateral publications. Although I ended up defending Heck from being
misrepresented, my factual material made him look all the worse and
the next round of callers were even more angry. When the show ended,
Larry King thanked us and shook his head, genuinely astounded, and
exclaimed, “I have never seen anything like this in my life.”
The next day, I received a frantic call from B. Dalton Booksellers
saying that they were getting calls from all over the country requesting
Trilaterals Over Washington and could I please express a couple of
review copies to them so that they could assemble their irst stocking
order. Well, I sent the books, but they never called back and an order
never materialized; in fact, upon calling several B. Dalton stores across
the country, Sutton and I heard repeatedly that the book was out of
print and the publisher was out of business. Really?
Yes, we had been blacklisted by one of the largest book selling chains
in the nation! Upon further investigation, we discovered a close
connection to a member of the Trilateral Commission sitting on the
board of directors of B. Dalton’s parent company, Dayton Hudson,
which is now Target. We also never heard another peep out of Larry
King or Mutual Broadcasting Radio.
Trilateral Basics
The idea to create the Trilateral Commission was irst informally
presented to people at the elitist Bilderberg group meeting in Europe
in 1972, by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. They had
lown there together for just that purpose, and because they were
encouraged by so many of their elitist brethren, they returned to the
U.S. and formed the Commission in 1973.
According to each issue of the of icial Trilateral Commission
quarterly magazine Trialogue,
The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 by private citizens of
Western Europe, Japan and North America to foster closer
cooperation among these three regions on common problems. It seeks
to improve public understanding of such problems, to support
proposals for handling them jointly, and to nurture habits and
practices of working together among these regions.54
Further, Trialogue and other of icial writings made clear their stated
goal of creating a “New International Economic Order”. President
George H.W. Bush later talked openly about creating a “New World
Order”, which has since become a synonymous phrase.
Rockefeller was chairman of the ultra-powerful Chase Manhattan
Bank, a director of many major multinational corporations and
“endowment funds” and had long been a central igure in the Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR). Brzezinski, a brilliant strategist for one-world
idealism, was a professor at Columbia University and the author of
several books that have served as “policy guidelines” for the Trilateral
Commission. Brzezinski served as the Commission’s irst executive
director from its inception in 1973 until late 1976 when he was
appointed by President Jimmy Carter as Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs.
The initial Commission membership consisted of approximately
three hundred people, with roughly one hundred each from Europe,
Japan and North America. Membership was also roughly divided
among academics, politicians and corporate magnates; these included
international bankers, leaders of prominent labor unions and
corporate directors of media giants.
The word “commission” was puzzling since it is usually associated
with instrumentalities set up by governments. It seemed out of place
for a private group unless we could determine that it really was an arm
of a government, an unseen government, different from the visible
government in Washington. The inclusion of European and Japanese
members indicated a global government rather than a national
government. We hoped that the concept of a sub-rosa world
government was just wishful thinking on the part of the Trilateral
Commissioners. The facts, however, lined up quite pessimistically.
It is important to note that Brzezinski and Rockefeller did not initially
seek advice from the Council on Foreign Relations but rather from the
global Bilderberg group. If the Council on Foreign Relations could be
said to be a spawning ground for many of the concepts of one-world
idealism, then the Trilateral Commission was the “task force”
assembled to assault the beachhead. Already the Commission had
placed its members in the top posts the U.S. had to offer.
President James Earl Carter, the Georgia peanut farmer turned
politician who promised, “I will never lie to you,” was chosen to join the
Commission by Brzezinski in 1973. It was Brzezinski, in fact, who irst
identi ied Carter as presidential timber, and subsequently educated
him in economics, foreign policy, and the ins-and-outs of world politics.
Upon Carter’s election, his irst appointment placed Brzezinski as
assistant to the president for national security matters. More
commonly, he was called the head of the National Security Council
because he answered only to the president; some rightly said
Brzezinski held the second most powerful position in the U.S.
Carter’s running mate, Walter Mondale, was also a member of the
Commission.
On January 7, 1977 Time Magazine, whose editor-in-chief, Hedley
Donovan was a powerful Trilateral, named President Carter “Man of
the Year”. The sixteen-page article in that issue not only failed to
mention Carter’s connection with the Trilateral Commission but also
stated the following:
As he searched for Cabinet appointees, Carter seemed at times
hesitant and frustrated disconcertingly out of character. His lack of
ties to Washington and the Party Establishment - qualities that helped
raise him to the White House - carry potential dangers. He does not
know the Federal Government or the pressures it creates. He does not
really know the politicians whom he will need to help him run the
country.55
Was this portrait of Carter as a political innocent simply inaccurate or
was it deliberately misleading? By December 25, 1976, two weeks
before the Time article appeared, Carter had already chosen his cabinet.
Three of his cabinet members, Cyrus Vance, Michael Blumenthal, and
Harold Brown, were Trilateral Commissioners and the other non-
Commission members were not unsympathetic to Commission
objectives and operations. In total, Carter appointed no fewer than
twenty Trilateral Commissioners to top government posts, including:

Zbigniew Brzezinski - National Security Advisor

Cyrus Vance - Secretary of State
Harold Brown - Secretary of Defense
W. Michael Blumenthal - Secretary of the Treasury
Warren Christopher - Deputy Secretary of State
Lucy Wilson Benson - Under Secretary of State for Security
Affairs
Richard Cooper - Under Secretary of State for Economic
Affairs
Richard Holbrooke - Under Secretary of State for East Asian
and Paci ic Affairs
Sol Linowitz - co-negotiator on the Panama Canal Treaty
Gerald Smith - Ambassador-at-Large for Nuclear Power
Negotiations
Elliott Richardson - Delegate to the Law of the Sea
Conference
Richard Gardner - Ambassador to Italy
Anthony Solomon - Under Secretary of the Treasury for
Monetary Affairs
Paul Warnke - Director, Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency
Robert R. Bowie - Deputy Director of Intelligence For
National Estimates
C. Fred Bergsten - Under Secretary of Treasury
James Schlesinger - Secretary of Energy
Elliot Richardson - Delegate to Law of the Sea
 Leonard Woodcock - Chief envoy to China
Andrew Young - Ambassador to the United Nations

When you include Carter and Mondale, these Commission members

represented almost one-third of the entire membership from the
United States roster.
Was there even the slightest evidence to indicate anything other than
collusion? Hardly! Zbigniew Brzezinski spelled out the quali ications
of a 1976 presidential winner in 1973:
The Democratic candidate in 1976 will have to emphasize work, the
family, religion and, increasingly, patriotism....The new conservatism
will clearly not go back to laissez faire. It will be a philosophical
conservatism. It will be a kind of conservative statism or managerism.
There will be conservative values but a reliance on a great deal of co-
determination between state and the corporations.56
On May 23, 1976 journalist Leslie H. Gelb wrote in the not-so-
conservative New York Times, “[Brzezinski] was the irst guy in the
Community to pay attention to Carter, to take him seriously. He spent
time with Carter, talked to him, sent him books and articles, educated
him.”57 Richard Gardner (also of Columbia University) joined into the
“educational” task, and as Gelb noted, between the two of them they
had Carter virtually to themselves. Gelb continued: “While the
Community as a whole was looking elsewhere, to Senators Kennedy
and Mondale...it paid off. Brzezinski, with Gardner, was now the leading
man on Carter’s foreign policy task force.”58
Although Richard Gardner was of considerable academic in luence,
it should be clear that Brzezinski was the “guiding light” of foreign
policy in the Carter administration. Along with Commissioner Vance
and a host of other Commissioners in the State Department, Brzezinski
had more than continued the policies of befriending our enemies and
alienating our friends. Since early 1977 we had witnessed a massive
push to attain “normalized” relations with Communist China, Cuba, the
USSR, Eastern European nations, Angola, etc. Conversely, we had
withdrawn at least some support from Nationalist China, South Africa,
Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia), etc. It was not just a trend: It was an
epidemic.
Needed: A More Just and Equitable World Order
The Trilateral Commission held their annual plenary meeting in
Tokyo, Japan, in January 1977. Carter and Brzezinski obviously could
not attend as they were still in the process of reorganizing the White
House. They did, however, address personal letters to the meeting,
which were reprinted in Trialogue, the of icial magazine of the
Commission:
It gives me special pleasure to send greetings to all of you gathering
for the Trilateral Commission meeting in Tokyo. I have warm
memories of our meeting in Tokyo some eighteen months ago, and am
sorry I cannot be with you now.
My active service on the Commission since its inception in 1973 has
been a splendid experience for me, and it provided me with excellent
opportunities to come to know leaders in our three regions.
As I emphasized in my campaign, a strong partnership among us is of
the greatest importance. We share economic, political and security
concerns that make it logical we should seek ever-increasing
cooperation and understanding. And this cooperation is essential not
only for our three regions, but in the global search for a more just and
equitable world order. I hope to see you on the occasion of your next
meeting in Washington, and I look forward to receiving reports on
your work in Tokyo.
Jimmy Carter59
Brzezinski’s letter, in a similar vein, follows:
The Trilateral Commission has meant a great deal to me over the last
few years. It has been the stimulus for intellectual creativity and a
source of personal satisfaction. I have formed close ties with new
friends and colleagues in all three regions, ties which I value highly
and which I am sure will continue.
I remain convinced that, on the larger architectural issues of today,
collaboration among our regions is of the utmost necessity. This
collaboration must be dedicated to the fashioning of a more just and
equitable world order. This will require a prolonged process, but I think
 we can look forward with con idence and take some pride in the
contribution which the Commission is making.
Zbigniew Brzezinski60
The key phrase in both letters was “more just and equitable world
order”. Did this emphasis indicate that something was wrong with our
present world order, that is, with national structures? Yes, according to
Brzezinski, and since the present “framework” was inadequate to
handle world problems, it must be done away with and supplanted with
a system of global governance.
In September 1974, Brzezinski was asked in an interview by the
Brazilian newspaper Veja, “How would you de ine this New World
Order?” Brzezinski answered:
When I speak of the present international system I am referring to
relations in speci ic ields, most of all among the Atlantic countries:
commercial, military, mutual security relations, involving the
international monetary fund, NATO etc. We need to change the
international system for a global system in which new, active and
creative forces recently developed - should be integrated. This system
needs to include Japan, Brazil, the oil producing countries, and even
the USSR, to the extent which the Soviet Union is willing to participate
in a global system.61
When asked if Congress would have an expanded or diminished role
in the new system, Brzezinski declared, “the reality of our times is that
a modern society such as the U.S. needs a central coordinating and
renovating organ which cannot be made up of six hundred people.”62
Understanding the philosophy of the Trilateral Commission was and
is the only way to reconcile the myriad of apparent contradictions in
the information iltered through the national press. For instance, how
was it that the Marxist regime in Angola derived the great bulk of its
foreign exchange from the offshore oil operations of Gulf Oil
Corporation? Why did Andrew Young insist that “Communism has
never been a threat to Blacks in Africa”? Why did the U.S. funnel billions
in technological aid to the Soviet Union and Communist China? Why
did the U.S. apparently help its enemies while chastising its friends?
A similar and perplexing question is asked by millions of Americans
today: Why do we spend trillions on the “War on Terror” around the
world and yet ignore the Mexican/U.S. border and the tens of
thousands of illegal aliens who freely enter the U.S. each and every
month? These “illegals” include not only Mexicans, but many other
nationalities from Central and South America and from Mideast
countries.
These questions, and hundreds of others like them, cannot be
explained in any other way: The U.S. Executive Branch was not anti-
Marxist or anti-Communist; it has tread on the stepping stones of
Marxism as it marched toward Brzezinski’s Technetronic Era. In other
words, those ideals which led to the heinous abuses of Hitler, Lenin,
Stalin, and Mussolini were now being accepted as necessary
inevitability by our elected and appointed leaders.
This hardly suggests the Great American Dream. It is very doubtful
that Americans would agree with Brzezinski or the Trilateral
Commission. It is the American public who is paying the price,
suffering the consequences, but not understanding the true nature of
the situation.
This nature, however, was not unknown or unknowable. It was never
secret, per se. Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) issued a clear and
precise warning in his 1979 book, With No Apologies:
The Trilateral Commission is international and is intended to be the
vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking
interests by seizing control of the political government of the United
States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated
effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power -
political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical.63
Follow the Money, Follow the Power
What was the economic nature of the driving force within the
Trilateral Commission? It was the giant multinational corporations -
those with Trilateral representation - which consistently bene ited
from Trilateral policy and actions. Polished academics such as
Brzezinski, Gardner, Allison, McCracken, Henry Owen etc., served only
to give “philosophical” justi ication to the exploitation of the world.
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, Caterpillar Tractor, Bank of America, Chase
Manhattan Bank, Deere & Company, Exxon, and others virtually dwarf
whatever remains of American businesses. The market value of IBM’s
stock alone, for instance, was greater than the value of all the stocks on
the American Stock Exchange. Chase Manhattan Bank had some ifty
thousand branches or correspondent banks throughout the world.
What reached our eyes and ears was highly regulated by CBS, the New
York Times, Time Magazine, etc.
The most important thing of all is to remember that the political coup
de grâce preceded the economic coup de grâce. The domination of the
Executive Branch of the U.S. government provided all the necessary
political leverage needed to skew U.S. and global economic policies to
their own bene it.
By 1977, the Trilateral Commission had notably become expert at
using crises to manage countries toward the New World Order; yet,
they found menacing backlashes from those very crises that they tried
to manipulate.
In the end, the biggest crisis of all was that of the American way of life.
Americans never counted on such powerful and in luential groups
working against the Constitution and freedom, either inadvertently or
purposefully, and even now, the principles that helped to build this
great country are all but reduced to the sound of meaningless babbling.
Trilateral Entrenchment: 1980-2007
It would have been damaging enough if the Trilateral domination of
the Carter administration was merely a one-time anomaly, but it was
not!
Subsequent presidential elections brought George H.W. Bush (under
Reagan), William Jefferson Clinton, Albert Gore and Richard Cheney
(under G. W. Bush) to power.
Thus, every Administration since Carter has had top-level Trilateral
Commission representation through the President or Vice-president,
or both! It is important to note that Trilateral hegemony has
transcended political parties; they have dominated - and continue to
dominate - both the Republican and Democrat parties with equal
aplomb.
In addition, the Administration before Carter was very friendly and
useful to Trilateral doctrine as well; President Gerald Ford took the
reins after President Richard Nixon resigned and then appointed
Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice President. Neither Ford nor Rockefeller
were members of the Trilateral Commission, but Nelson was David
Rockefeller’s brother and that says enough. According to Nelson
Rockefeller’s memoirs, he originally introduced then-governor Jimmy
Carter to David and Brzezinski.
How has the Trilateral Commission orchestrated their goal of
creating a New International Economic Order? Most notably, they
seated their own members at the top of the institutions of global trade,
global banking and foreign policy.
For instance, the World Bank is one of the most critical mechanisms
in the engine of globalization.64 Since the founding of the Trilateral
Commission in 1973, there have been only seven World Bank
presidents, all of whom were appointed by the President. Of these
eight, six were pulled from the ranks of the Trilateral Commission!
Robert McNamara (1968-1981)
A.W. Clausen (1981-1986)
Barber Conable (1986-1991)
Lewis Preston (1991-1995)
James Wolfenson (1995-2005)
Paul Wolfowitz (2005-2007)
Robert Zoellick (2007-2012)
Jim Yong Kim (2012-Present)
Another good evidence of domination is the position of U.S. Trade
Representative (USTR), which is critically involved in negotiating the
many international trade treaties and agreements that have been
necessary to create the New International Economic Order. Since 1977,
there have been twelve USTRs appointed by the President. Nine have
been members of the Trilateral Commission!
Robert S. Strauss (1977-1979)
Reubin O’D. Askew (1979-1981)
William E. Brock III (1981-1985)
Clayton K. Yeutter (1985-1989)
Carla A. Hills (1989-1993)
Mickey Kantor (1993-1997)
Charlene Barshefsky (1997-2001)
Robert Zoellick (2001-2005)
Rob Portman (2005-2006)
Susan Schwab (2006-2009)
Ron Kirk (2009-2013)
Michael Froman (2013-Present)
This is not to say that Clayton Yeuter, Rob Portman and Ron Kirk were
not friendly to Trilateral goals because they clearly were, and each had
signi icant involvement with other Trilateral members in the past.
The Secretary of State cabinet position has seen its share of
Trilaterals as well: Henry Kissinger (Nixon, Ford), Cyrus Vance
(Carter), Alexander Haig (Reagan), George Shultz (Reagan),
Lawrence Eagleburger (G.H.W. Bush), Warren Christopher (Clinton)
and Madeleine Albright (Clinton) There were some Acting Secretaries
of State that are also noteworthy: Philip Habib (Carter), Michael
Armacost (G.H.W. Bush), Arnold Kantor (Clinton), Richard Cooper
(Clinton). Hillary Clinton (Obama) was not a Trilateral, but her
husband, William Clinton, was.
Lastly, it should be noted that the Federal Reserve has likewise been
dominated by Trilaterals: Arthur Burns (1970-1978), Paul Volker
(1979-1987), Alan Greenspan (1987-2006). While the Federal
Reserve is a privately-owned corporation, the President “chooses” the
Chairman to a perpetual appointment. The more recent heads of the
Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke and Janet Yelen, are not members of the
Trilateral Commission, but they clearly followed the same globalist
policies as their predecessors.
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 the present. The pattern has been deliberate and
persistent: Appoint members of the Trilateral Commission to critical
positions of power so that they can carry out Trilateral policies.
The question is and has always been, do these policies originate in
consensus meetings of the Trilateral Commission where two-thirds of
the members are not U.S. citizens? The answer is all too obvious.
Trilateral-friendly defenders attempt to sweep criticism aside by
suggesting that membership in the Trilateral Commission is incidental
and that it only demonstrates the otherwise high quality of appointees.
Are we to believe that in a country of 317 million people only these 100
or so are quali ied to hold such critical positions? Again, the answer is
all too obvious.
Where Does the Council on Foreign Relations Fit?
While virtually all Trilateral Commission members from North
America have also been members of the CFR, the reverse is certainly
not true. It is natural to over-criticize the CFR because most of its
members seem to ill the balance of government positions not already
illed by Trilaterals.
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 the
Commission! If director participation re lected only the general
membership of the CFR, then only 3-4 percent of the board would be
Trilaterals.65
Further, the president of the CFR is Richard N. Haass, a very
prominent Trilateral member who also served as Director of Policy
Planning for the U.S. Department of State from 2001-2003.
Trilateral in luence can easily be seen in policy papers produced by
the CFR in support of Trilateral goals.
For instance, the 2005 CFR task force report on the Future of North
America was perhaps the major Trilateral policy statement on the
intended creation of the North American Union. Vice-chair of the task
force was Dr. Robert A. Pastor who emerged as the “Father of the North
American Union” and was directly involved in Trilateral operations
since the 1970s. While the CFR claimed that the task force was
“independent”, careful inspection of those appointed reveal that three
Trilaterals were carefully chosen to oversee the Trilateral position, one
each from Mexico, Canada and the United States: Luis Rubio, Wendy K.
Dobson and Carla A. Hills, respectively.66 Hills has been widely hailed
as the principal architect of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) that was negotiated under President George H.W. Bush in
1992.
The bottom line is that the Council on Foreign Relations, thoroughly
dominated by Trilaterals, serves the interests of the Trilateral
Commission and not the other way around!
Trilateral Globalization in Europe
The content of this chapter thus far suggests ties between the
Trilateral Commission and the United States. This is not intended to
mean that Trilaterals are not active in other countries as well. Recalling
the early years of the Commission, David Rockefeller wrote in 1998,
Back in the early Seventies, the hope for a more united EUROPE was
already full-blown - thanks in many ways to the individual energies
previously spent by so many of the Trilateral Commission’s earliest
members.67 [Capitals in original]
Thus, since 1973 and in parallel with their U.S. hegemony, the
European members of the Trilateral Commission were busy creating
the European Union (EU). In fact, the EU’s Constitution was authored
by Commission member Valery Giscard d’Estaing in 2002-2003 when
he was President of the Convention on the Future of Europe.
The steps that led to the creation of the European Union are
unsurprisingly similar to the steps being taken to create the North
American Union today. As with the EU, lies, deceit and confusion are
the principal tools used to keep an unsuspecting citizenry in the dark
while they forge ahead without mandate, accountability or oversight.
Case Study: NAFTA Explained
It is necessary to have a practical understanding of the methods used
by the Trilateral Commission to achieve their New International
Economic Order. To this end, our discussion must digress to the topic
of trade treaties, agreements and regulations, and exactly how they
have been used against us. As boring as that may sound, it actually
provides all the elements of a made-for-TV drama: Collusion, secrecy,
manipulation and deceit. One must use detective-like skills to grasp the
modus operandi. As you discover how the game works, you will
understand every current and future plot as well. You will also
understand why nine out twelve U.S. Trade Representatives, who lead
the trade negotiations, have all been members of the Trilateral
Commission.
In Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, authority is granted to
Congress “To regulate commerce with foreign nations.” An effective
end-run around this insurmountable obstacle would be to convince
Congress to voluntarily turn over this power to the President. With
such authority in hand, the President could freely negotiate treaties
and other trade agreements with foreign nations and then simply
present them to Congress for a straight up or down vote requiring only
a simple 51 percent majority instead of 66 percent, with no
amendments possible. This again points out elite disdain for a
Congress that is elected to be representative “of the people, by the
people and for the people.”
The irst so-called “Fast Track” legislation (of icially known as Trade
Promotion Authority) was passed by Congress in 1974, just one year
after the founding of the Trilateral Commission. It was the same year
that Nelson Rockefeller was con irmed as Vice President under
President Gerald Ford, neither of whom were elected by the U.S. Public;
Ford had become President after the resignation of Richard Nixon. As
Vice-President, Nelson Rockefeller was, according to the Constitution,
seated as the president of the U.S. Senate.
According to Public Citizen, the bottom line of Fast Track is that
…the White House signs and enters into trade deals before Congress
ever votes on them. Fast Track also sets the parameters for
congressional debate on any trade measure the President submits,
requiring a vote within a certain time with no amendments and only
20 hours of debate.68
When an agreement is about to be given to Congress, high-powered
lobbyists and political hammer-heads are called in to manipulate
congressional hold-outs into voting for the legislation. With only 20
hours of debate allowed, there is little opportunity for public
involvement.
 The Council of the Americas, founded by David Rockefeller (Nelson
Rockefeller’s brother) in 1965, played an instrumental part in the
passage of this 1974 legislation. According to Rockefeller himself,
The Council of the Americas played an integral role in the ultimately
successful effort to secure TPA (Trade Promotion Authority)… the
Council lobbied hard for the legislation. Although the vote in the House
was extremely close (215 ayes to 214 nays), the Senate passed TPA
more easily.69
With Nelson Rockefeller presiding as President of the Senate, it is
little wonder that it passed there with ease. Nevertheless, Congress
clearly understood the risk of giving up this power to the President, as
evidenced by the fact that they put an automatic expiration date on it.
Since the expiration of the original Fast Track, there has been a very
contentious trail of Fast Track renewal efforts. In 1996, President
Clinton utterly failed to re-secure Fast Track after a bitter debate in
Congress. After another contentious struggle in 2001/2002, President
Bush was able to renew Fast Track for himself in the Trade Act of 2002,
just in time to negotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement
(CAFTA) and insure its passage in 2005.
It is startling to realize that since 1974, Fast Track has been used in a
small minority of trade agreements. Under the Clinton presidency, for
instance, some 300 separate trade agreements were negotiated and
passed normally by Congress, but only two of them were submitted
under Fast Track: NAFTA and the GATT Uruguay Round. In fact, from
1974 to 1992, there were only three instances of Fast Track in action:
GATT Tokyo Round, U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement and the Canada-
U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Thus, NAFTA was only the fourth invocation
of Fast Track up until that time.
Soon after NAFTA, Clinton used Fast Track authority to submit the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which was passed by the Senate on
December 1, 1994 and signed into law on December 8. This sweeping
treaty provided for the creation of the World Trade Organization which
has been instrumental in reforming international trade. Subsequent
annual WTO meetings typically made headlines not because of their
disastrous trade policies but because of the violent street protests
staged by activists from all over the world.
The selective use of Fast Track legislation suggests a very narrow
agenda. These trade bamboozles didn’t stand a ghost of a chance to be
passed without it, and the global elite knew it. Fast Track was created
as a very speci ic legislative tool to accomplish a very speci ic
executive task -- namely, to “fast track” the creation of the “New
International Economic Order” envisioned by the Trilateral
Commission in 1973!
Article Six of the U.S. Constitution states that “all Treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to
the contrary notwithstanding.” Because international treaties
supersede national law, Fast Track has allowed an enormous
restructuring of U.S. law without resorting to a Constitutional
Convention. It is a clear example of the “end run around national
sovereignty” that Richard Gardner had called for in 1974. In this case,
it was the counter-move to the failed “frontal assault” by Henry
Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski as early as 1972 when they called
for a Constitutional Convention to change the very fabric of our nation.
Those suggestions were overwhelmingly rejected by the American
public as outrageous and dangerous. In the end, Fast Track achieved
that and more.
North American Free Trade Agreement
NAFTA was negotiated under the executive leadership of Republican
President George H.W. Bush. Carla Hills is widely credited as being
the principal architect and negotiator of NAFTA. Both Bush and Hills
were members of the Trilateral Commission!
With Bush’s irst presidential term drawing to a close and Bush
desiring political credit for NAFTA, an “initialing” ceremony of NAFTA
was staged (so Bush could take credit for NAFTA) in October, 1992.
Although very of icial looking, most Americans did not understand the
difference between initialing and signing; at the time, Fast Track was
not implemented and Bush did not have the authority to actually sign
such a trade agreement.
 Bush subsequently lost a publicly contentious presidential race to
Democrat William Jefferson Clinton, but they were hardly polar
opposites on the issue of Free Trade and NAFTA. The reason? Clinton
was also a seasoned member of the Trilateral Commission.
Immediately after inauguration, Clinton became the champion of
NAFTA and orchestrated its passage with a massive Executive Branch
effort.
Prior to the 1992 election, however, there was a ly in the Trilateral
ointment, namely, presidential candidate and billionaire Ross Perot,
founder and chairman of Electronic Data Systems (EDS). Perot was
politically independent, vehemently anti-NAFTA and chose to make it a
major campaign issue in 1991. In the end, the global elite would have to
spend huge sums of money to overcome the negative publicity that
Perot gave to NAFTA.
At the time, some political analysts believed that Perot, being a
billionaire, was somehow put up to this task by the same elitists who
were pushing NAFTA. Presumably, it would accumulate all the anti-
globalists in one tidy group, thus allowing the elitists to determine who
their true enemies really were. It is a moot point today whether he was
sincere or not, but it did have that outcome, and Perot became a
lightning rod for the whole issue of free trade.
Perot hit the nail squarely on the head in one of his nationally
televised campaign speeches:
If you’re paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you
can move your factory south of the border, pay a dollar an hour for
labor, hire young -- let’s assume you’ve been in business for a long time
and you’ve got a mature workforce - pay a dollar an hour for your
labor, have no health care - that’s the most expensive single element in
making a car - have no environmental controls, no pollution controls,
and no retirement, and you didn’t care about anything but making
money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south....70
[Emphasis added]
Perot’s message struck a nerve with millions of Americans, but it was
unfortunately cut short when he entered into public campaign debates
with fellow candidate Albert Gore. Simply put, Gore ate Perot’s lunch,
not so much on the issues themselves, but on having superior debating
skills. As organized as Perot was, he was no match for a politically and
globally seasoned politician like Al Gore. To counter the public
relations damage done by Perot, all the stops were pulled out as the
NAFTA vote drew near. As proxy for the global elite, the President
unleashed the biggest and most expensive spin machine the country
had ever seen.
Former Chrysler chairman Lee Iacocca was enlisted for a multi-
million dollar nationwide ad campaign that praised the bene its of
NAFTA. The mantra, carried consistently throughout the many spin
events: “Exports. Better Jobs. Better Wages.” all of which have turned
out to be empty promises.
Bill Clinton invited three former presidents to the White House to
stand with him in praise and af irmation of NAFTA. This was the irst
time in U.S. history that four presidents had ever appeared together. Of
the four, three were members of the Trilateral Commission: Bill
Clinton, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. Gerald Ford was not a
Commissioner, but was nevertheless a con irmed globalist insider.
After Ford’s accession to the presidency in 1974, he promptly
nominated Nelson Rockefeller (David Rockefeller’s oldest brother) to
ill the Vice Presidency that Ford had just vacated.
The academic community was enlisted when, according to Harper’s
Magazine publisher John MacArthur,
...there was a pro-NAFTA petition, organized and written by MIT’s
Rudiger Dornbusch, addressed to President Clinton and signed by all
twelve living Nobel laureates in economics, and exercised in academic
logrolling that was expertly converted by Bill Daley and the A-Team
into PR gold on the front page of The New York Times on September
14. ‘Dear Mr. President,’ wrote the 283 signatories...71
Lastly, prominent Trilateral Commission members themselves took
to the press to promote NAFTA. For instance, on May 13, 1993,
Commissioners Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance wrote a joint op-ed
that stated,
[NAFTA] would be the most constructive measure the United States
would have undertaken in our hemisphere in this century.72
 Two months later, Kissinger went further:
It will represent the most creative step toward a new world order
taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War, and the
irst step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the
entire Western Hemisphere. [NAFTA] is not a conventional trade
agreement, but the architecture of a new international system.73
[Emphasis added]
It is hardly fanciful to think that Kissinger’s hype sounds quite similar
to the Trilateral Commission’s original goal of creating a New
International Economic Order.
On January 1, 1994, NAFTA became law. Under Fast Track procedures,
the house had passed it by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102
Democrats voting in favor), and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38.
That Giant Sucking Sound Going South
To understand the potential impact of the North American Union, one
must understand the impact of NAFTA.
NAFTA promised greater exports, better jobs and better wages. Since
1994, just the opposite has occurred. The U.S. trade de icit soared,
approaching $1 trillion dollars per year; the U.S. has lost some 1.5
million jobs, and real wages in both the U.S. and Mexico have fallen
signi icantly.
Patrick Buchanan offered a simple example of NAFTA’s deleterious
effect on the U.S. economy:
When NAFTA passed in 1993, we imported some 225,000 cars and
trucks from Mexico, but exported about 500,000 vehicles to the world.
In 2005, our exports to the world were still a shade under 500,000
vehicles, but our auto and truck imports from Mexico had tripled to
700,000 vehicles.
As McMillion writes, Mexico now exports more cars and trucks to the
United States than the United States exports to the whole world. A ine
end, is it not, to the United States as “Auto Capital of the World”?
What happened? Post-NAFTA, the Big Three just picked up a huge
slice of our auto industry and moved it, and the jobs, to Mexico.74
Of course, this only represents the auto industry, but the same effect
has been seen in many other industries as well. Buchanan correctly
noted that NAFTA was 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 to Mexico.” Indeed, this is the very
spirit of all outsourcing of U.S. jobs and manufacturing facilities to
overseas locations.
Respected economist Alan Tonelson, author of The Race to the
Bottom, notes the smoke and mirrors that cloud what has really
happened with exports:
Most U.S. exports to Mexico before, during and since the (1994) peso
crisis have been producer goods - in particular, parts and components
sent by U.S. multinationals to their Mexican factories for assembly or
for further processing. The vast majority of these, moreover, are
reexported, and most get shipped right back to the United States for
inal sale. In fact, by most estimates, the United States buys 80 to 90
percent of all of Mexico’s exports.75
Tonelson concludes that “the vast majority of American workers have
experienced declining living standards, not just a handful of losers.”
Mexican economist and scholar Miguel Pickard sums up Mexico’s
supposed bene its from NAFTA:
Much praise has been heard for the few ‘winners’ that NAFTA has
created, but little mention is made of the fact that the Mexican people
are the deal’s big ‘losers.’ Mexicans now face greater unemployment,
poverty, and inequality than before the agreement began in 1994.76
In short, NAFTA has not been a friend to the citizenry of the United
States or Mexico. Still, this was the backdrop against which the North
American Union (NAU) is being acted out. The globalization players
and their promises have remained pretty much the same, both just as
disingenuous as ever.
Prelude to the North American Union
Remember that a core element of Technocracy, Inc. in the 1930s was
the continental integration of Mexico, the United States, Canada,
Central America and portions of South America to include Columbia
and Venezuela. Howard Scott never addressed the issue of how to
integrate these nations, but a solution was proposed with the creation
of NAFTA. Soon after it was passed in 1994, Dr. Robert A. Pastor began
to push for a “deep integration” which NAFTA could not provide by
itself. His dream was summed up in his book, Toward a North American
Union, published in 2001. Unfortunately for Pastor, the book was
released just a few days prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York
and thus received little attention from any sector.
However, Pastor had the right connections. He was invited to appear
before the plenary session of the Trilateral Commission held in
Ontario, Canada on November 1-2, 2002, to deliver a paper drawing
directly on his book. His paper, A Modest Proposal To the Trilateral
Commission, made several recommendations:

...the three governments should establish a North Amer-ican

Commission (NAC) to de ine an agenda for Summit meetings by
the three leaders and to monitor the implementation of the
decisions and plans.
A second institution should emerge from combining two
bilateral legislative groups into a North American
Parliamentary Group.
The third institution should be a Permanent Court on Trade and
Investment.
The three leaders should establish a North American
Development Fund, whose priority would be to connect the U.S.-
Mexican border region to central and southern Mexico.
The North American Commission should develop an integrated
continental plan for transportation and infrastructure.
...negotiate a Customs Union and a Common External Tariff.
Our three governments should sponsor Centers for North
American Studies in each of our countries to help the people of
all three understand the problems and the potential of North
America and begin to think of themselves as North
Americans.77

Pastor’s choice of the words “Modest Proposal” were almost comical

considering that he intended to reorganize the entire North American
continent.
Nevertheless, the Trilateral Commission was completely on board.
Subsequently, it was Pastor who emerged as the U.S. vice-chairman of
the CFR task force that was announced on October 15, 2004:
The Council has launched an independent task force on the future of
North America to examine regional integration since the
implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement ten
years ago.... The task force will review ive spheres of policy in which
greater cooperation may be needed. They are: deepening economic
integration; reducing the development gap; harmonizing regulatory
policy; enhancing security; and devising better institutions to manage
con licts that inevitably arise from integration and exploit
opportunities for collaboration.78
Independent task force, indeed! A total of twenty-three members
were chosen from the three countries. Each country was represented
by a member of the Trilateral Commission: Carla A. Hills (U.S.), Luis
Rubio (Mexico) and Wendy K. Dobson (Canada). Robert Pastor served
as the U.S. vice-chairman. This CFR task force was unique in that it
focused on economic and political policies for all three countries, not
just the U.S. The Task Force stated purpose was to
...identify inadequacies in the current arrangements and suggest
opportunities for deeper cooperation on areas of common interest.
Unlike other Council-sponsored task forces, which focus primarily on
U.S. policy, this initiative includes participants from Canada and
Mexico, as well as the United States, and will make policy
recommendations for all three countries.79
Richard Haass, chairman of the CFR and long-time member of the
Trilateral Commission, pointedly made the link between NAFTA and
integration of Mexico, Canada and the U.S.:
Ten years after NAFTA, it is obvious that the security and economic
futures of Canada, Mexico, and the United States are intimately bound.
But there is precious little thinking available as to where the three
countries need to be in another ten years and how to get there. I am
excited about the potential of this task force to help ill this void.80
Haass’ statement “there is precious little thinking available”
underscores a repeatedly used elitist technique. That is, irst decide
what you want to do, and second, assign a lock of academics to justify
your intended actions. This is the crux of academic funding by NGOs
such as the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie-Mellon,
etc. After the justi ication process is complete, the same elites that
suggested it in the irst place allow themselves to be drawn in as if they
had no other logical choice but to play along with the “sound thinking”
of the experts.
The task force met three times, once in each country. When the
process was completed, it issued its results in May, 2005, in a paper
titled Building a North American Community and subtitled Report of the
Independent Task Force on the Future of North America. Even the sub-
title suggests that the “future of North America” is a fait accompli
decided behind closed doors.
Some of the recommendations of the task force were:

Adopt a common external tariff

Adopt a North American Approach to Regulation
Establish a common security perimeter by 2010
Establish a North American investment fund for
infrastructure and human capital
Establish a permanent tribunal for North American dispute
resolution
An annual North American Summit meeting that would bring
the heads-of-state together for the sake of public display of
con idence
Establish minister-led working groups that will be required
to report back within 90 days, and to meet regularly
Create a North American Advisory Council
Create a North American Inter-Parliamentary Group.81

Sound familiar? It should. Many of the recommendations are

verbatim from Pastor’s “modest” presentation to the Trilateral
Commission mentioned above, or from his earlier book, Toward a
North American Union.
 Shortly after the task force report was issued, the heads of all three
countries did indeed meet together for a summit in Waco, Texas on
March 23, 2005. The speci ic result of the summit was the creation of
the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The
joint press release stated,
We, the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, have
met in Texas to announce the establishment of the Security and
Prosperity Partnership of North America.
We will establish working parties led by our ministers and secretaries
that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These
working parties will respond to the priorities of our people and our
businesses, and will set speci ic, measurable, and achievable goals.
They will outline concrete steps that our governments can take to
meet these goals, and set dates that will ensure the continuous
achievement of results.
Within 90 days, ministers will present their initial report after which,
the working parties will submit six-monthly reports. Because the
Partnership will be an ongoing process of cooperation, new items will
be added to the work agenda by mutual agreement as circumstances
warrant.82
Once again, we saw Pastor’s North American Union ideology being
continued, but this time as an outcome of a summit meeting of three
heads-of-states. The question must be raised, “Who was really in
charge of this process?”
Indeed, the three premiers returned to their respective countries and
started their “working parties” to “consult with stakeholders”. In the
U.S., the “speci ic, measurable, and achievable goals” were only seen
indirectly by the creation of a government website billed as “Security
and Prosperity Partnership of North America”. The stakeholders are
not mentioned by name, but it was clear that they were generally
representatives of business interests of members of the Trilateral
Commission!
The second annual summit meeting took place on March 30-31, 2006,
in Cancun, Mexico among Bush, Fox and Canadian prime minister
Stephen Harper. The Security and Prosperity Partnership agenda was
summed up in a statement from Mexican president Vicente Fox:
We touched upon fundamental items in that meeting. First of all, we
carried out an evaluation meeting. Then we got information about the
development of programs. And then we gave the necessary
instructions for the works that should be carried out in the next period
of work... We are not renegotiating what has been successful or open
in the Free Trade Agreement. It’s going beyond the agreement, both for
prosperity and security.83
Regulations instead of Treaties
It may not have occurred to the reader that the two SPP summits
resulted in no signed agreements. This is not accidental nor a failure of
the summit process. The so-called “deeper integration” of the three
countries is being accomplished through a series of regulations and
executive decrees that avoid citizen watchdogs and legislative
oversight.84
In the U.S., the 2005 Cancun summit spawned some 20 different
working groups that would deal with issues from immigration to
security to harmonization of regulations, all under the auspices of the
Security and Prosperity Partnership. The SPP in the U.S. was of icially
placed under the Department of Commerce, headed by Secretary Carlos
M. Gutierrez, but other Executive Branch agencies also had SPP
components that reported to Commerce.
After two years of massive effort by investigative journalists, the
names of the SPP working group members were never discovered, nor
was the result of their work. Furthermore, Congressional oversight of
the SPP process was completely absent.
The director of SPP, Geri Word, was contacted to ask why a cloud of
secrecy was hanging over SPP. According to investigative journalist
Jerome Corsi, Word replied, “We did not want to get the contact people
of the working groups distracted by calls from the public.”85
This paternalistic attitude is a typical elitist mentality. Their work -
whatever they have dreamed up on their own - is too important to be
distracted by the likes of pesky citizens or their elected legislators.
This elite change of tactics must not be understated: Regulations and
Executive Orders have replaced Congressional legislation and public
debate. There is no pretense of either. This is another Gardner-style
“end-run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.”
Apparently, the Trilateral-dominated Bush administration believed
that it had accumulated suf icient power to ram the NAU down the
throat of the American People, whether they protested or not.
Robert A. Pastor: A Trilateral Commission Operative
As mentioned earlier, Pastor was hailed as the father of the North
American Union, having written more papers about it, delivered more
testimonies before Congress, and headed up task forces to study it,
than any other single U.S. academic igure. He was a tireless architect
and advocate of the NAU. Although he might seem to have been a fresh,
new name in the globalization business, Pastor has a long history with
Trilateral Commission members and the global elite.
He is the same Robert Pastor who was the executive director of the
1974 CFR task force (funded by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations)
called the Commission on U.S.-Latin American Relations - aka the
Linowitz Commission. The Linowitz Commission, chaired by an
original Trilateral Commissioner, Sol Linowitz, was singularly credited
with the giveaway of the Panama Canal in 1976 under the Carter
presidency. All of the Linowitz Commission members were members of
the Trilateral Commission save one, Albert Fishlow; other members
were W. Michael Blumenthal, Samuel Huntington, Peter G. Peterson,
Elliot Richardson and David Rockefeller.
One of Carter’s irst actions as President in 1977 was to appoint
Zbigniew Brzezinski to the post of National Security Advisor. In turn,
one of Brzezinski’s irst acts was to appoint his protégé, Dr. Robert A.
Pastor, as director of the Of ice of Latin American and Caribbean
Affairs. Pastor then became the Trilateral Commission’s point-man to
lobby for the Canal giveaway.
To actually negotiate the Carter-Torrijos Treaty, Carter sent none
other than Sol Linowitz to Panama as temporary ambassador. The 6-
month temporary appointment avoided the requirement for Senate
con irmation. Thus, the very same people who created the policy
became responsible for executing it.
The Trilateral Commission’s role in the Carter Administration has
been con irmed by Pastor himself in his 1992 paper The Carter
Administration and Latin America: A Test of Principle:
In converting its predisposition into a policy, the new administration
had the bene it of the research done by two private commissions.
Carter, Vance, and Brzezinski were members of the Trilateral
Commission, which provided a conceptual framework for
collaboration among the industrialized countries in approaching the
full gamut of international issues. With regard to setting an agenda
and an approach to Latin America, the most important source of
in luence on the Carter administration was the Commission on U.S.-
Latin American Relations, chaired by Sol M. Linowitz.86
As to the inal Linowitz Commission reports on Latin America, most
of which were authored by Pastor himself, he states,
The reports helped the administration de ine a new relationship with
Latin America, and 27 of the 28 speci ic recommendations in the
second report became U.S. policy.87
The Security and Prosperity Partnership was quietly terminated in
August 2009 when its website was updated to say “The Security and
Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is no longer an active
initiative. There will not be any updates to this site.”88
Pastor’s deep involvement with Trilateral Commission members and
policies is irrefutable. In 1996, when Trilateral Commissioner Bill
Clinton nominated Pastor as Ambassador to Panama, his con irmation
was forcefully knocked down by Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) who held a
deep grudge against Pastor for his central role in the giveaway of the
Panama Canal in 1976.
Conclusion
It is clear that the Executive Branch of the U.S. was literally hijacked in
1976 by members of the Trilateral Commission, upon the election of
President Jimmy Carter and Vice-President Walter Mondale. This
near-absolute domination, especially in the areas of trade, banking,
economics and foreign policy, has continued unchallenged and
unabated to the present.
Windfall pro its have accrued to interests associated with the
Trilateral Commission, but the effect of their “New International
Economic Order” on the U.S. has been nothing less than devastating.
The philosophical underpinnings of the Trilateral Commission have
the appearance of being pro-Marxist and pro-Socialist, but only as a
stepping stone leading to Brzezinski’s Technetronic, or Technocratic,
society. They are solidly set against the concept of the nation-state and
in particular, the Constitution of the United States. Thus, national
sovereignty must be diminished and then abolished altogether in order
to make way for the New International Economic Order that will be
governed by an unelected global elite with their self-created legal
framework.
If you are having a negative reaction against Trilateral-style
globalization, you are not alone. A 2007 Financial Times/Harris poll
revealed that less than 20 percent of people in six industrialized
countries (including the U.S.) believe that globalization is good for
their country while over 50 percent are outright negative towards it.89
While citizens around the world are feeling the pain of globalization,
few understand why it is happening and hence, they have no effective
strategy to resist it.
The American public has never, ever conceived that such forces would
align themselves so successfully against freedom and liberty. Yet, the
evidence is clear; steerage of America has long since fallen into the
hands of an actively hostile enemy that intends to remove all vestiges
of the very things that made us the greatest nation in the history of
mankind.
52 David Rockefeller, Memoirs (Random House, 2002), p.418.
53 Note: For clarification, Trilateral Commission member names are in bold.
54 Trialogue, Trilateral Commission (1973).
55 “Jimmy Carter: Man of the Year”, Time Magazine, January 7, 1977.
56 Sutton & Wood, Trilaterals Over Washington (August, 1979), p. 7.
57 Leslie Gelb, “Jimmy Carter”, New York Times, May 23, 1976.
58 ibid.
59 “Looking Back ¦And Forward,” Trialogue, (Trilateral Commission, 1976)
60 ibid.
61 Veja Magazine, (Brazil, 1974).
62 ibid.
63 Barry Goldwater, With No Apologies, (Morrow, 1979), p. 280.
64 Patrick Wood, “Global Banking: The World Bank”, The August Forecast & Review.
65 Board of Directors, Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/about/people/board_of_directors.html.
66 “Building a North American Community”, Council on Foreign Relations, (2005).
67 David Rockefeller, In the Beginning: The Trilateral Commission at 25, (Trilateral Commission, 1998), p.11.
68 “Fast Track Talking Points”, Global Trade Watch, Public Citizen
(http://www.citizen.org/hot_issues/print_issue.cfm?ID=141).
69 David Rockefeller, Memoirs, (Random House, 2011), p. 438.
70 Ross Perot, “Excerpts From Presidential Debates”, (1992).
71 John MacArthur, The Selling of Free Trade, (Univ. of Cal. Press, 2001) p. 228.
72 Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance, Op Ed, Washington Post, May 13, 1993.
73 Henry Kissinger, Op-Ed. Los Angeles Times, July 18, 1993.
74 Patrick Buchanan, “The Fruits of NAFTA”, The Conservative Voice, March 10, 2006.
75 Alan Tonelson, The Race to the Bottom, (Westview Press, 2002) p. 89.
76 Miguel Pickard, “Trinational Elites Map North American Future in ‘NAFTA Plus’”, (http://www.irc-online.com).
77 Dr. Robert A. Pastor, “A Modest Proposal To the Trilateral Commission”, Trilateral Commission , 2002.
78 “Council Joins Leading Canadians and Mexicans to Launch Independent Task Force on the Future of
America”, (http://www.cfr.org/world/council-joins-leading-canadians-mexicans-launch-independent-task-force-
future-north-america/p7454), October 15, 2004.
79 ibid.
80 ibid.
81 “Building a North American Community”, Council on Foreign Relations, 2005.
82 “North American Leaders Unveil Security and Prosperity Partnership, International Information Programs”,
U.S. Govt. Website.
83 Vincente Fox, “Concluding Press Conference at Cancun Summit”, March 31, 2006.
84 Pickard, p. 1
85 Jerome Corsi, “Bush sneaking North American super-state without oversight?”, WorldNetDaily, June 12,
2006.
86 Dr. Robert A. Pastor, “The Carter Administration and Latin America: A Test of Principle”, The Carter Center,
July 1992, p. 9.
87 ibid. p. 10.
88 “The SPP is dead. Let’s keep it that way”, September 24, 2009, (http://rabble.ca/news/2009/09/spp-dead-lets-
keep-it-way).
89 FT/Harris poll on Globalization, (http://www.FT.com).
 CHAPTER 4
T E

T echnocracy proposed a completely different economic system

that had never been implemented in the history of the world. It
was to be a system run by scientists and engineers who would make
decisions based on their application of the Scienti ic Method to control
both social and economic matters. Price-based economics, with its
proven laws of supply and demand, would be replaced with an energy-
based system controlled by the distribution and consumption of
energy. Consumers would be forced to abandon traditional money in
return for energy credits that would be spent to acquire goods and
services that are arti icially priced based on the energy consumed in
bringing those goods and services to the marketplace. People would
work at assigned jobs deemed to be best suited for their education,
skills, intelligence and temperament. Thus, the Technocracy would
therefore minimize the use of raw materials by assuring maximum
ef iciency, minimum waste, and reasonable amounts of end-user
consumption. Who would decide what is reasonable for your personal
consumption? They would. Each person would receive according to his
need, as long as his need was within bounds allowed by the
technocratic regulators.
The elements of this new economic system can thus be seen very
clearly in the Technocracy Study Course:

Register on a continuous 24 hour-per-day basis the total net

conversion of energy.
By means of the registration of energy converted and
consumed, make possible a balanced load.
Provide a continuous inventory of all production and
consumption.
Provide a speci ic registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods
and services, where produced and where used.
 Provide speci ic registration of the consumption of each
individual, plus a record and description of the individual.90

The second item above intended to “make possible a balanced load,”

and this is the heart of the system. Incessant monitoring of every
action within the system makes possible the calculations necessary for
a state of balance, or equilibrium. This would require continuous
adjustment of both output and consumption, with the limiting factor
being resource usage.
If it seems to you that such an economic model is completely
Orwellian in nature, it is because that is exactly the case. It would
micromanage every last detail of your life according to the formulas
and algorithms created by the enlightened scientists and engineers.
The apparent lunacy of Technocracy becomes more clear as you dig
deeper into it. How is it then, that we ind the United Nations as the
primary driver for Technocracy in all the nations of the world? This is a
pressing question that will be answered in short order, but not before a
little further explanation to lay the groundwork.
The United Nations has had a uniform strategy across all of its many
units to foster the creation of a so-called “green economy”. A partial
de inition of what this means is found in a statement by the United
Nations Governing Council of the U.N. Environmental Programme
(UNEP):
A green economy implies the decoupling of resource use and
environmental impacts from economic growth... These investments,
both public and private, provide the mechanism for the
recon iguration of businesses, infrastructure and institutions, and for
the adoption of sustainable consumption and production processes.91
Sustainable consumption? Recon iguring businesses, infrastructure
and institutions? What do these words mean? This is not merely a
reshuf le of the existing order but a total replacement with a
completely new economic system, one that has never before been seen
or used in the history of the world. This is underscored by UNEP when
it further states, “our dominant [current] economic model may thus be
termed a ‘brown economy.’” To UNEP, there is a consistent sense of
urgency to kill off the existing brown economy in favor of a green
economy.
Brown is bad. Green is good. Brown represents the failed past. Green
represents the bright future.
However, to grasp what it means to decouple resource use and
environmental impacts from economic growth, the focus must be on
the word decoupling. The International Resource Panel (IRP), another
unit of UNEP, gives a clear de inition:
While ‘decoupling’ can be applied in many ields, from algebra to
electronics, the IRP applies the concept to sustainable development in
two dimensions. Resource decoupling means reducing the rate of the
use of resources per unit of economic activity. Impact decoupling
means maintaining economic output while reducing the negative
environmental impact of any economic activities that are undertaken.
Relative decoupling of resources or impacts means that the growth
rate of the resources used or environmental impacts is lower than the
economic growth rate, so that resource productivity is rising. Absolute
reductions of resource use are a consequence of decoupling when the
growth rate of resource productivity exceeds the growth rate of the
economy.92
Note that decoupling has no meaning outside of the UN’s concept of
sustainable development.
UNEP actually maintains a dedicated web site titled Green Economy
where prominently labeled subsections are seen: Climate Change,
Ecosystem Management, Environmental Governance and Resource
Ef iciency. Their initiative, Partnership for Action on Green Economy
(PAGE), states that it is,
…a response to the outcome document of the United Nations
Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), entitled The Future
We Want, which recognizes the green economy as a vehicle for
sustainable development and poverty eradication.93
Who is the “we” in The Future We Want? Well, since none of this was
ever put to a public vote in any country in the world, it is obvious that it
refers only to themselves.
Nevertheless, we can see that the green economy is “a vehicle for
sustainable development and poverty eradication.” It is also clear that the
green economy concept 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 irst Rio conference held in 1992 created the original
and de initive document for sustainable development called Agenda 21.
The Rio+20 conference was held to further Agenda 21 and Sustainable
Development on a global basis.
The above mentioned PAGE document further states that there are
four main U.N. agencies that are focused in unison on creating the
green economy:

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

International Labour Organization (ILO)
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
(UNIDO)
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)

Together, PAGE will

build enabling conditions in participating countries by shifting
investment and policies towards the creation of a new generation of
assets, such as clean technologies, resource ef icient infrastructure,
well-functioning ecosystems, green skilled labour and good
governance.94
Note that it is the U.N. who asserts that they will shift investment and
policies in order to achieve their desired outcomes of ef iciency and
governance. In direct Technocracy lingo, governance refers to
management of society by engineering experts who alone can create a
“resource ef icient infrastructure”.
In this short treatment of the green economy, I have purposely tread
lightly to show that it is wrapped up in a network of global agendas that
is squarely focused on the original tenet of Technocracy, namely,
Sustainable Development. No doubt a technocrat reading this book will
cry “foul!” at this assertion. While it is true that the literal term of
“Sustainable Development” was not coined by the original Technocrats,
most would be jealous that someone else beat them to it. The fact of
the matter is that Sustainable Development is conceptually identical to
Technocracy’s “balanced load”.
The foundational document for Technocracy, Inc. was the book
Technocracy Study Course, written primarily by co-founder M. King
Hubbert. In it he stated,
Although it [the earth] is not an isolated system the changes in the
con iguration of matter on the earth, such as the erosion of soil, the
making of mountains, the burning of coal and oil, and the mining of
metals are all typical and characteristic examples of irreversible
processes, involving in each case an increase of entropy.95
As a scientist, Hubbert tried to explain (or justify) his argument in
terms of physics and the law of thermodynamics, which is the study of
energy conversion between heat and mechanical work. Entropy is a
concept within thermodynamics that represents the amount of energy
in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work.
Entropy thus increases as matter and energy in the system degrade
toward the ultimate state of inert uniformity. In layman’s terms,
entropy means once you use it, you lose it for good. Furthermore, the
end state of entropy is “inert uniformity” where nothing takes place.
The Technocrat’s avoidance of social entropy is to increase the
ef iciency of society by the careful allocation of available energy and
measuring subsequent output in order to ind a state of “equilibrium”,
or balance. Hubbert’s focus on entropy is further evidenced by
Technocracy, Inc.’s logo, the well-known Yin Yang symbol that depicts
balance.
According to Hubbert’s thinking then, if man uses up all the available
energy and/or destroys the ecology in the process, it cannot be
repeated or restored ever again and man will cease to exist. Hubbert
believed that mankind faces extinction unless ef iciency and
sustainable resource practices are maximized and that such
ef iciencies and practices can only be imposed by unelected and
unaccountable scientists, engineers and technicians.
In short, the heartbeat of Technocracy is Sustainable Development. It
calls for an engineered society where the needs of mankind are in
perfect balance with the resources of nature. Furthermore, this
necessitates the “decoupling of resource use and environmental
impacts from economic growth” as stated above. In other words, the
driver is resource availability rather than economic growth.
The introduction of the PAGE brochure reiterates this idea: “A green
economy is one that results in improved human well-being and social
equity, while signi icantly reducing environmental risks and ecological
scarcities”.96
The bottom line is that the U.N. agenda for a green economy is
nothing more than warmed-over Technocracy from the 1930s.
Technocracy’s utopian siren call in the 1930s promised the same
human well-being, social equity and abundance beyond measure.
Technocrats failed to deliver on their promises and were generally
rejected by society by the end of the 1930s.
It is necessary to review exactly how the United Nations arose in the
irst place, if for no other reason than to tie these policies to the same
global elite as represented by the Trilateral Commission. Notably, the
Commission was co-founded by and initially inanced by David
Rockefeller, who was at the time chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank.
The Rockefeller family also played a prominent role in the history of
the United Nations, for which I will defer to the words of U.N. Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon in 2012 commemorating the Rockefeller
Foundation’s “global philanthropy” and the establishment of the
League of Nations Library:
I am honoured to be here on this eighty- ifth anniversary of the
historic donation of John D. Rockefeller Jr. to the League of Nations
Library. At the time, Mr. Rockefeller said he made the gift based on the
conviction that “peace must inally be built on the foundation of well-
informed public opinion.” This powerful statement rings true today.
It is itting that we are naming this room after him. I thank the family
for donating the portrait of John D. Rockefeller that was displayed at
the Rockefeller Foundation for 65 years. In offering this generous gift,
David Rockefeller said he hoped it would serve as a reminder of his
father’s generosity – but more importantly his conviction that strong
international organizations can help create a just, equitable and
peaceful world.
 The Rockefeller family has lived up to this conviction, providing
immense support for the League of Nations and the United Nations
over the years. The original donation to this library was particularly
signi icant. Even today, the interest provides approximately $150,000
every biennium to this wonderful library. That makes it possible to
care for its many priceless historical treasures, including a signed copy
of the Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant of the League of Nations.
This Library also safeguards more recent history, including the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with original letters from
Eleanor Roosevelt and René Cassin. I applaud the mission of this
library to serve international understanding. I am deeply grateful to
all the staff. You make an enormous contribution through your help
for researchers and citizens who are interested in the United Nations’
history and work. I personally want to thank the Rockefeller family for
my own of ice — and the entire United Nations campus on the East
Side of Manhattan.
When Rockefeller’s donation of the land was announced in the
General Assembly in 1945, the Hall was illed with loud applause. The
United States Ambassador cheered Mr. Rockefeller’s “magni icent
benevolence”. I am deeply grateful to the esteemed members of the
Rockefeller family and the Rockefeller Foundation for continuing the
noble tradition of supporting international organizations devoted to
peace. As recently as this past June, at the Rio+20 summit on
sustainable development, the Rockefeller Foundation and the United
Nations Global Compact launched a new framework for action to help
meet social and environmental needs.97
“Magni icent benevolence”, indeed. The United Nations headquarters
was built in 1949 on 17 acres of prime real estate - donated by John D.
Rockefeller, Jr. - in New York City on First Avenue between East 46th
and East 48th Streets. It is not hard to see the tight inancial
relationship between the U.N. and Rockefeller interests that started so
many decades ago. It is only slightly more obscure to see what the
Rockefellers have received in return for their benevolent support.
In many ways, ideology can be compared to a virus. History is riddled
with failed ideas that were forgotten as soon as they were uttered;
many virus mutations terminated before they ever had a chance to
infect other victims. What is necessary for a virus to spread is
contagion, or a medium by which it can be transmitted. In order for
Technocracy to make a resurgence on the world stage, it also required a
contagion by which entire societies and social systems could be
successfully infected. This medium is the United Nations, and the
Rockefeller consortium used it with great effectiveness to deceive the
nations into believing that Sustainable Development (e.g.,
Technocracy’s “balance”) could solve all of the world’s problems and
bring peace, prosperity and social justice to everyone. Indeed, the mass
of global humanity is embracing the promises of technocratic
utopianism as if there is no other possibility for the salvation of
mankind.
As a writer with an economist perspective, it is very disappointing
that economists of the academic world are completely ignoring the
impacts and outcomes of the U.N.’s so-called green economy. If it were
an argument in a vacuum, I would not be concerned in the slightest. But
this is actually happening today where academia actually is leading the
charge. No one is even questioning the outcomes of their utopian
studies, much less repudiating them.
Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development
Agenda 21 is Technocracy’s plan for the 21st century. The agent of
implementation is Sustainable Development. The driver is the United
Nations. The perpetrators are members of the Trilateral Commission
and their globalist cronies. The victims are all the peoples of the world.
As you will see, it is no understatement that the policies of Agenda 21
and Sustainable Development are already fully injected into the fabric
of economic, political and social life everywhere. While the “what” is
certainly important, the “who” is even more critical to understand.
Where did Agenda 21 come from? Was it spontaneous? Was it created
by legions of global wannabes at the U.N.?
In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) sponsored the Earth Summit that met in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil. It was attended by representatives from 172
governments with 116 being heads-of-state, who labored for 12
intense days to produce several non-legally binding documents. First,
there was the 300-page Agenda 21 document that was essentially the
blueprint for implementation of Sustainable Development and all of its
surrounds under the aegis of “green” and “smart”. Second, there was
the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, commonly known
as the Rio Declaration, that set forth 27 principles that would guide
implementation of Sustainable Development. Third, there was the
Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the
Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of
Forests, a set of recommendations for the sustainable management of
forestry.
The Rio Declaration also produced three legally binding agreements
that were opened for signature by participating nations. First, there
was the Convention on Biological Diversity that covered ecosystems,
species and genetic resources, and that ultimately produced the
massive 1,140-page Global Biodiversity Assessment document. Second,
there was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) that led to the so-called Kyoto Protocol in 1997; the purpose
of UNFCCC was to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Third, there was the United Nations Convention to Combat
Deserti ication (UNCCD) that addressed Sustainable Development in
countries that experience serious drought or increase in desert areas.
During the Rio conference, the then-Secretary General of the U.N.,
Boutros-Ghali, also called for the creation of the Earth Charter which
was later completed and published on June 29, 2000. The preamble to
the Earth Charter states,
We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when
humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly
interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and
great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst
of a magni icent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human
family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join
together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect
for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of
peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth,
 declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of
life, and to future generations.98
It is not coincidental that the principal author of the Earth Charter
was Stephen C. Rockefeller, the son of the former Vice President Nelson
Rockefeller and nephew of David Rockefeller. Stephen Rockefeller has
been a key player in the Rockefeller family by serving as a trustee of the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund and as a director of the Rockefeller
Philanthropy Advisors. Stephen has never been a member of the
Trilateral Commission, but he was a founder of the interfaith
movement and has been active for decades to infuse globalization into
religion all over the world.
At any rate, the Rio Declaration was a busy and productive event,
kicking off the biggest salvo of globalist mumbo-jumbo the world has
ever seen at one time. As you might expect by now, there is more to the
story. Indeed, Rio did not materialize out of nowhere, but rather was
carefully planned and orchestrated for years in advance.
According to an important U.N. document published in 2010 and
titled Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012,
In 1983, the UN convened the WCED [World Commission on
Environment and Development], chaired by Norwegian Prime Minister
Gro Harlem Brundtland. Comprised of representatives from both
developed and developing countries, the Commission was created to
address growing concern over the “accelerating deterioration of the
human environment and natural resources and the consequences of
that deterioration for economic and social development.” Four years
later, the group produced the landmark publication Our Common
Future (or the Brundtland report) that provided a stark diagnosis of
the state of the environment. The report popularized the most
commonly used de inition of sustainable development: “Development
that meets the needs of current generations without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”99
In the very next paragraph, the U.N. ties the knot between the Rio
Declaration and the so-called Brundtland Commission:
The Brundtland report provided the momentum for the landmark
1992 Rio Summit that laid the foundations for the global
 institutionalization of sustainable development… Agenda 21 included
40 separate chapters, setting out actions in regard to the social and
economic dimensions of sustainable development, conservation and
management of natural resources, the role of major groups, and
means of implementation.100
Thus, the Brundtland Commission can be directly credited with two
important things: memorializing the phrase “Sustainable
Development” and laying the groundwork for the 1992 Rio conference
that produced all of the above-mentioned documents, agreements and
memorandums.
There were admittedly other U.N. activities dating as far back as 1972
that provided some fuel to the ire that was ignited by the Brundtland
Commission, but this Commission is and has been widely understood
to be the quintessential creator of Agenda 21 and modern Sustainable
Development.
The Chair of the Brundtland Commission was none other than
Trilateral Commission member Gro Harlem Brundtland. She has been
universally acclaimed as being the main driver behind the Commission
and the principal architect and editor of its concluding report, Our
Common Future. Formerly the Prime Minister of Norway, Brundtland
was Harvard educated and a long-time activist for environmental
causes.
If this were likened to a football game, the United Nations might have
held the ball in place, but it was Brundtland who performed the initial
kickoff.
It is an interesting side-note that Brundtland is currently co-chair of a
global organization known as The Elders, whose website states, “The
Elders is founded on the idea that we now live in a ‘global village’, an
increasingly interconnected, interdependent world.”101 Other elders
include Trilateral Commission members Jimmy Carter, Mary
Robinson and Ernesto Zedillo. Of course, The Elders are self-
appointed but nevertheless view themselves as the real elders of the
global village known to them as planet earth.
After the Earth Summit was completed, the Trilateral Commission’s
in luence was hardly over. President George H. Bush had personally
attended the Summit in Rio, and while he rejected some parts of the
signing ceremonies, he did sign the Framework Convention on Climate
Change. Soon-to-be President William Jefferson Clinton blasted Bush
for his inept leadership and stated, “I would be signing every one of
those documents--proudly.”102
After his election, President Clinton wasted no time in starting the
implementation of Agenda 21. On March 3, 1993, just one month before
the of icial Agenda 21 book was released, Clinton hastily announced a
program called the National Performance Review (NPR) and appointed
Vice President Al Gore as its irst director. On September 11, 1993,
Clinton inalized the NPR by signing Executive Order 12862. In 1998,
the truer colors of NPR were revealed when it was renamed the
National Partnership for Reinventing Government.
Why the need to reinvent our government? In short, implementing
Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development would require a different
form of government that was out of the view of the public and
lawmakers alike. Agenda 21 would be implemented across America
through a system of regional governance entities called Councils of
Governments, or COGS. At the local level, these COGS quietly apply
these un-American policies while generally keeping the public in the
dark. Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The United States shall
guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
Government.” Regional governance by unelected and unaccountable
COGS is the polar opposite of a Republican Form of Government.
On April 23, 1993, the of icial Agenda 21 300 page, 40-chapter book
was published, and it was widely heralded by the rest of the world. In
the U.S., it was mostly a non-event. There is little doubt that if the
Agenda 21 book had been circulated in the U.S. as an of icial policy
document, there would have been a signi icant backlash, if not outright
rebellion. Clinton instead opted for an “end-run around national
sovereignty” by signing Executive Order 12852 on June 29, 1993 that
created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD).
Vice President Al Gore wrote about Clinton’s intent:
Its goal, he declared, was to ind ways “to bring people together to
meet the needs of the present without jeopardizing the future.”103
 This direct quote from Bill Clinton rings back to Gro Brundtland’s
de inition of Sustainable Development found in Our Common Future:
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs. [Emphasis added]
Although there would be no record of it, my guess is that somewhere
in the 1980s, the Trilateral Commission (or some prominent members
thereof) met to purposely hammer out a clever marketing slogan that
would sell their Technocracy to the world. It has de initely made the
rounds. You will frequently ind this exact phrase in general planning
documents for local cities, towns and counties all across America!
By 1998, the PCSD produced its own book, Sustainable America, that
personalized Agenda 21 policies for the U.S. According to one report,
The crown jewel of the PCSD’s work is the national action strategy
articulated in the report, Sustainable America. The report spells out a
speci ic set of national goals, backs these with a broad set of policy
recommendations, and details speci ic actions necessary to support
their implementation. Finally, the report also includes a tentative set
of indicators to measure the country’s progress toward achieving the
goals proposed. The PCSD’s co-chairs and the task forces kept their
eyes on the prize: articulating a road map for the U.S.104 [Emphasis
added]
Roadmap, indeed. The only problem is that the rest of America was
never told what was going on right under their nose.
In regional and local implementation scenarios, it became known as
Local Agenda 21, or simply, LA21. However, don’t think the American
public wasn’t catching on and throwing up a roadblock; and don’t think
that the PCSD didn’t feel the heat. J. Gary Lawrence, an advisor to the
PCSD, gave a telling speech in June 1998 in England, titled The Future of
Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium and let the proverbial cat out of
the bag:
Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely
bring out many of the conspiracy- ixated groups and individuals in our
society such as the National Ri le Association, citizen militias and
some members of Congress. This segment of our society who fear
 “one-world government” and a UN invasion of the United States
through which our individual freedom would be stripped away
would actively work to defeat any elected of icial who joined “the
conspiracy” by undertaking LA21. So, we call our processes
something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth
management or smart growth.105 [Emphasis added]
If you have ever wondered why local of icials don’t know what you are
talking about when you mention Agenda 21 or LA21, now you know
why. The language was changed. Instead, ask them what they know
about comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth
and you will have a lengthy conversation!
As Lawrence concluded his talk, he hinted at the sea of change
directly ahead in 1999 and beyond: “The next step is organizational
transformation so that LA21 is not a process but a state of being.”
Today, his goal has largely been met with 717 regional government
entities across 50 states, all continuously implementing Agenda 21 and
Sustainable Development policies.
Some readers may still be wondering exactly how Sustainable
Development is related to Technocracy. The answer is contained in the
word “development” which in all cases refers to economic
development. The U.N.’s so-called “green economy” is synonymous
with Sustainable Development, which is prescribed by Agenda 21,
which is derived from the Technocracy-based economic model.
Virtually every local planning document created in the last ten years
will have economic development language embedded in it; frequently
used terms include public-private partnerships, smart growth,
comprehensive planning, urban renewal, collaborative planning, land
use planning and so on. In every instance, you must remember that the
green economy is not the same as America’s traditional capitalist
economy. The green economy changes the rules of the game and
produces new winners and losers. Those who haven’t recognized this
changing economic landscape will most often ind themselves on the
outside looking in wondering what happened to the world they once
understood.
What is Sustainable Economy?
 What does the green economy mean in practical terms? To answer
this question we must turn to the of icial documents of Sustainable
Development:

1. Agenda 21: Programme of Action For Sustainable Develop-ment.

(A21) This 294 page, 40-chapter book, published in 1993, is
the original speci ication for Agenda 21 that was decided at
the Earth Summit in Rio in June 1992.
2. Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA). This 1140-page
document was published by the United Nations Environment
Programme in 1995 and greatly expands many sections of the
Agenda 21 document.

The following will give a short summary of a few areas that are clearly
addressed in the A21 and GBA documents.
Education
Education was seen as foundational to promote Sustainable
Development dogma. In order to promote global transformation, global
education standards were needed. Agenda 21 addressed this in
Chapter 36:
Education is critical for promoting sustainable development and
improving the capacity of the people to address environmental and
development issues… [members agree to] achieve environmental and
development awareness in all sectors of society on a world-wide scale
as soon as possible… non-governmental organizations can make an
important contribution in designing and implementing educational
programmes.106
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for instance, is such a Non-
Governmental Organization (NGO) that made an “important
contribution” by funding the development of Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) for education in 2008 - to the tune of $239 million!
Gates turned to another NGO, the National Governors Association
(NGA), to spread Common Core State Standards throughout America.
The NGA’s website claims that Common Core is a “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 of
unsuspecting state educators and parents.
Free Trade
Agenda 21’s treatment of Free Trade and Protectionism quickly give
away the people who created it, namely, members of the Trilateral
Commission and their globalist friends. It is therefore not surprising
that A21 states that all nations should
Halt and reverse protectionism in order to bring about further
liberalization and expansion of world trade… facilitate the integration
of all countries into the world economy and the international trading
system… implement previous commitments to hold and reverse
protectionism and further expand market access.107
Such promotion by Trilateral members started well before 1992,
however. In 1976, Trilateral Commission member Carla A. Hills
chaired the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Conference on Human
Settlements (Habitat I). Her report stated,
To achieve universal progress in the quality of life, a fair and balanced
structure of the economic relations between states has to be
promoted. It is therefore essential to implement urgently the New
International Economic Order, based on the Declaration and
Programme of Action approved by the General Assembly in its sixth
special session, and on the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of
the States.108
Thus, Hills set the tone for the outcome of the Habitat I conference,
namely, to stimulate the urgent implementation of the “New
International Economic Order”, a phrase and concept that was found
nowhere else except in Trilateral Commission literature and talking
points.
Agriculture
The Global Biodiversity Assessment calls for a reduction of agricultural
acreage, restrictions on unsustainable activities, and a return of
existing land to native habitat condition:
And while agriculture has bene itted enormously from biodiversity, its
success has contributed increasingly to the loss of biodiversity. Land
 use for human food production now occupies over one-third of the
world’s land area - in 1991 cropland covered 11% of the world’s land
area, and permanent pasture 26% - and is the leading cause of
habitat conversion on a global basis.109
Agriculture makes a relatively small contribution to overall economic
activity in America as measured by the Gross Domestic Product, but it
represents a large part of personal expenditures and is necessary for
the sustaining of life. Nevertheless, pressure has been increasingly
placed on American farmers and ranchers to curtail their production
activities, to the extent that tens of thousands have been driven out of
business over the last 25 years.
Dams and Reservoirs
Policies and calls for the destruction and removal of dams began
during the Clinton Administration under Secretary of the Interior
Bruce Babbitt, who was also a member of the Trilateral Commission
along with Clinton and Gore. In 2012 Babbitt wrote, “dam removal has
evolved from a novelty to an accepted means of river restoration.”110
The GBA was instrumental in moving the destruction of dams from
Babbitt’s novelty to what it is today:
…dam construction is the most obvious human intervention leading to
the loss of wetland habitats… Rivers are also being in luenced through
human activities in their catchments, which are being in luenced by
embankments, draining deforestation, urbanization and industry. The
remaining free- lowing large river systems are relatively small and
nearly all situated in the far north.111
There are approximately 65,000 dams in the United States, and some
22,000 have been targeted for removal. There is nothing logical about
dam removal. Hydroelectric power is the cheapest and most ef icient
source of energy available where it is possible. Economic activity
surrounding lakes and reservoirs includes marinas, campgrounds,
restaurants, housing developments, recreation facilities, etc., all of
which would be wiped out if the water disappears.
Property Rights
Private property is eschewed, calling for government control of rights
and resources that will be “licensed” in certain situations:
Property rights can still be allocated to environmental public goods,
but in this case they should be restricted to usufructual or user rights.
Harvesting quotas, emission permits and development rights… are all
examples of such rights.112
The word “usufruct” is derived from Roman law and means “the legal
right of using and enjoying the fruits or pro its of something belonging
to another.” Since Rome claimed ownership to everything, people had
to apply for “rights” which they would never be able to own outright.
Such rights can be revoked by the owner at any time.
In 1976, Trilateral Commission member Carla A. Hills said the
following about land and property rights:
Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in
human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled
by individuals and subject to the pressures and inef iciencies of the
market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of
accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes
to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the
planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice,
urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings and
healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in
the interests of society as a whole.113
The consistent use of the word “usufruct” in documents such as the
GBA serve to explain why the Federal government is rushing to lock up
as much as 50 percent of all the available land in the United States. For
those property owners who will not sell, their property rights are then
diminished to the point where their property has no remaining value in
the market.
Population Control
It is stating the obvious that all economic activity ultimately depends
on people as consumers. People buy things for survival and for
pleasure. Increasing population has afforded economic growth in
America since the day it was founded in 1776. Agenda 21 and GBA
declare that in order to put resources back into balance with current
human consumption, there will have to be a signi icant shrinkage in
population:
A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the
present North American material standard of living would be one
billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2-3 billion
would be possible.114
There are approximately 7.2 billion people on the planet today. While
the GBA does not suggest ways to get rid of 5-6 billion people outright,
it does suggest that we must lower our standard of living to the point of
being in balance with what they think the environment can supply to
us. In 1804, global population was one billion people. Extrapolating
consumption per capita back to that level would almost satisfy the
GBA’s criteria. Of course, that would be an economic disaster because
95% of all commercial enterprises would be put out of business, and
those that remain would be shrunken beyond recognition.
Information management
As documented in the Technocracy Study Course in 1934, three of the
original requirements were:

Provide a continuous inventory of all production and

consumption
Provide a speci ic registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods
and services, where produced and where used
Provide speci ic registration of the consumption of each
individual, plus a record and description of the individual.115

It is not surprising to see this exact Technocracy-inspired

terminology turn up in the A21 document:
Expand or promote databases on production and consumption and
develop methodologies for analyzing them… Assess the relationship
between production and consumption, environment, technological
adaption and innovation, economic growth and development, and
demographic factors… Identify balanced patterns of consumption
worldwide.116
Other things that have been deemed unsustainable by A21 and the
GBA include things like power line construction, harvesting timber,
hunting, dams and reservoirs, automobiles, fencing off pasture, private
land ownership, grazing of livestock, livestock, electric appliances, rural
living, paved roads, railroads, and a plethora of others. Any activity to
expand activities in these areas will now be met with ierce resistance,
while activity to curtail them will be praised as sustainable.
Sustainable Development is a Trojan horse that looks good on the
outside but is illed with highly toxic and militant policies on the inside.
It promises a utopian dream that it cannot possibly deliver. There is no
economic growth if living standards and consumption patterns regress
back into the 1800s, or if population is curtailed. There is no economic
satisfaction if people cannot easily enjoy and transfer real property or
accumulate wealth and savings. There is no personal satisfaction if
people are constantly under a microscope for analysis of their
sustainable activity, or the lack of it.
90 Hubbert and Scott, p. 232.
91 Governing Council of the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), “Green Economy”, (United Nations, 2009),
p. 2.
92 Fischer-Kowalski, Swilling, et.al, “Decoupling: Natural Resource Use and Environ-mental Impacts From
Economic Growth”, (International Resource Panel, 2011), p. 5.
93 See http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/page
94 Ibid.
95 Hubbert & Scott, p. 49.
96 Ibid.
97 UN Secretary-General, “Marking Historic Donation to the League of Nations Library-Hails Rockefeller
Foundation’s ‘Global Philanthropy’”, September 2, 2012.
98 Earth Charter, UNESCO, (http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/img/02_earthcharter.pdf).
99 “Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012”, United Nations Headquarters, 2010.
100 Ibid.
101 See www.TheElders.org.
102 “EARTH SUMMIT : Clinton Blasts Bush for U.S. ‘Holdout’ in Rio”, Los Angeles Times, June 13, 1992.
103 President’s Council on Sustainable Development, Sustainable America: A New Consensus (Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1996), p. 2.
104 Crescencia Maurer, The U.S. President’s Council on Sustainable Development: A Case Study, September
1998.
105 J.Gary Lawrence, “The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium”, The Millemium Papers Issue 2,
1998, p. 5.
106 Agenda 21, p.265.
107 Agenda 21, p. 21
108 “U.N. Conference on Human Settlements”, Habitat I, 1976, p. 6, Item 14.
109 Vernon Heywood, ed, Global Biodiversity Assessment, (Cambridge University Press 1996), p. 943.
110 Bruce Babbitt, “The Dawn of Dam Removal”, Patagonia, 2012.
111 GBA, p. 755
112 GBA, Sec. 12.7.5.
113 Ibid.
114 BGA, 11.2.3.2.
115 Hubbert & Scott, p. 232.
116 Agenda 21, p. 32.
 CHAPTER 5
T G

S ociety is built on three legs: economics, politics and religion.

These three must be mutually compatible or the society will not
last long, and the dust bin of history has plenty of examples of societies
that failed when division set in. During the transition from Capitalism
to Technocracy, today’s modern society appears to be dysfunctional
and irrational. The underlying reality is that as the societal model
morphs into Technocracy, nothing is clear to those who try to
understand the world using traditional and outdated concepts. The
reader has already discovered how radically different the “green”
economy is compared to traditional price-based economic theory. Now
we must explore how management of society will be conducted by
Technocrats, and how that differs from traditional political concepts of
a government which is, in the famous words of Abraham Lincoln at the
Gettysburg Address, “of the people, by the people and for the people”.
In America, government has traditionally been based on geographical
boundaries. A city has “city limits”, a county has a “county line” and a
state has borders. Within those geographical limits, the citizens
exercise political autonomy to create whatever kind of life they want to
enjoy, and each grouping of citizens must determine how to best run its
own infrastructure, education, health care, social services, etc.
Technocracy turns this concept on its head by dissolving sovereign
borders while calling for a system of governance based on Functional
Sequence that removes a segment of responsibility from the lower
political entity and awards it to a higher level. To an engineer like M.
King Hubbert (co-founder of Technocracy, Inc. in 1934), this was a
perfectly natural and “ef icient” way of viewing the Technate, or the
individual unit of Technocracy that contained citizens. According to
Hubbert then,
The basic unit of this organization is the Functional Sequence. A
Functional Sequence is one of the larger industrial or social units, the
 various parts of which are related one to the other in a direct
functional sequence.
Thus among the major Industrial Sequences we have transportation
(rail- roads, waterways, airways, highways and pipe lines);
communication (mail, telephone, telegraph, radio and
television); agriculture (farming, ranching, dairying, etc.); and
the major industrial units such as textiles, iron and steel, etc.
Among the Service Sequences are education (this would embrace the
complete training of the younger generation), and public health
(medicine, dentistry, public hygiene, and all hospitals and
pharmaceutical plants as well as institutions for defectives).113
[Emphasis added]
Furthermore, Hubbert envisioned the appointed head of each
Functional Sequence as belonging to a continental board of directors
which itself would be headed by a Continental Director. For each of
these “functions”, there would be no democratic discussion or vote
because the engineering expert-in-charge knows best how to run
things by applying logic and ef iciency. Furthermore, even though local
control is promised for a myriad of other issues, these Functional
Sequences would be merely provided as services to the individual
Technates.
It is not a stretch to correlate Hubbert’s vision to modern
implementation of Functional Sequences such as health care
(Obamacare), control over water (Army Corps of Engineers), land
(Councils of Governments), agricultural practices (Bureau of Land
Management), education (Common Core), energy (Department of
Energy, Smart Grid), transportation (Metropolitan Planning
Organizations), emergency management (FEMA) and so on. Not long
ago, all of these functions were under local or personal control within
the context of traditional geographic boundaries such as cities, towns,
counties and states. A town, for instance, had a locally-elected school
board that set education policy for itself. Emergency management was
managed by a ire board or city council. Land use was determined by an
elected zoning board.
Hubbert’s above reference to “institutions for defectives” is
disturbing and shows evidence of his strong views on eugenics as a
necessary Functional Sequence. Apparently, the inef iciencies of
defectives and their high cost of maintenance are not to be tolerated in
a system that strives for perfect ef iciency. In California, where
Technocracy, Inc. found its largest support, eugenics was in its heyday
during the 1930s where over 20,000 men, women and children were
deemed defective and were subsequently sterilized by force. This is a
dark history of California, by the way, but I can personally attest to the
reality of it. This writer was adopted at birth by a woman who had been
forcibly sterilized because her older brother was deemed to be
genetically “retarded”. A few years later, it was determined that her
brother was not retarded at all, but had been deprived of oxygen at
birth, thus producing brain damage. An investigative article written in
2012 by CNN Health stated,
Thirty-two states had eugenics programs, but California was in a
league of its own… In California, the eugenics movement was led by
igures such as David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University,
and Harry Chandler, publisher of the Los Angeles Times…. California’s
movement was so effective that in the 1930s, members of the Nazi
party asked California eugenicists for advice on how to run their own
sterilization program. ”Germany used California’s program as its chief
example that this was a working, successful policy,” Cogdell said. “They
modeled their law on California’s law.”114
Shamefully for California, its eugenics and forced sterilization
program continued to operate until 1963. On a national and global
scale, eugenics is still alive and well, most often associated with the
population control policies put forth by Agenda 21.
As mentioned earlier in this book, President Bill Clinton signed
Executive Order 12862 on September 11, 1993 that formalized the
National Performance Review (NPR) which was headed up by Al Gore.
NPR was later more accurately renamed the National Partnership for
Reinventing Government. The intellectual work that brought Clinton
and Gore to take action was a book titled Reinventing Government by
Osborne and Gaebler. The book was published on February 1, 1993 and
reviewed as follows on May 1, 1993:
 In Reinventing Government, David Osborne and Ted Gaebler attempt
to chart a course between big government and laissez faire. They want
nothing to do with “ideology”. Rather, Osborne and Gaebler are
technocrats in search of pragmatic answers. “Reinventing
Government,” they write, “addresses how governments work, not what
governments do.” Thus, from the standpoint of what governments do,
the book is a proverbial grab bag of policy prescriptions, some good,
some bad.115 [Emphasis added]
Yes, you read that right: They were “technocrats in search of
pragmatic answers.” Osborne and Gaebler were completely in tune with
historic Technocracy by focusing on “how governments work, not what
governments do”. In fact, Technocrats have never cared about political
ideology, but rather only about the best and most ef icient solutions to
any problem that could be described in engineering terms. Thus,
historic Technocracy gave them convenient license to tackle the
Functional Sequences of government in ways not previously seen.
Historians have already credited Osborne and Gaebler as being the
singular inspiration behind Clinton’s Partnership on Reinventing
Government, but the fact that they were technocrats gives a different
perspective on the matter. Indeed, they set the course for reinventing
government along the lines of Functional Sequences that would
support and incentivize the reinvented economic system of
Technocracy, also described as the “green economy” of Sustainable
Development.
Vice President Al Gore chose David Osborne to be his senior advisor
in running the National Performance Review, and he subsequently
became the principal author of the NPR report that Time Magazine
allegedly called “the most readable federal document in memory”.
Clinton’s program was so impressive that by 1999, it was picked up
by the United Nations as a global program under the auspices of the
U.N. Public Administration Programme (UNPAP). In a document titled
The Global Forum on Reinventing Government, UNPAP describes what
happened as follows:
The Global Forum was irst organized by the Government of the United
States in 1999. Since then, it has emerged as one of the most
 signi icant global events to address government reinvention.
Subsequent forums have been organized by the Governments of Brazil,
Italy, Morocco, Mexico, and the Republic of Korea, respectively. During
the 6th Global Forum held in Seoul in May 2005, the United Nations
Under-Secretary-General invited participants to the 7th Global Forum
to be held at the UN Headquarters.116
This further con irms the global push toward Technocracy because
governments throughout the world must be similarly transformed if
they are to be compatible with an energy-based economic system run
by technocrats and not by elected of icials.
Essentially, the goal of reinventing government was to convert from a
bureaucratic to a business model of governance. When Clinton irst
announced his initiative in March 1993, he stated, “Our goal is to make
the entire federal government less expensive and more ef icient, and to
change the culture of our national bureaucracy away from complacency
and entitlement toward initiative and empowerment.”117 The irst
three - cutting expenses, improving ef iciency, encouraging initiative -
can be seen as the typical mantra of Technocracy, but “empowerment”
needs some explanation.
In a corporate sense, empowerment refers to a results-oriented
culture where authority to decide how to complete a given outcome is
pushed down the chain of command to the lowest level of management.
When senior managers declare a certain strategy for their
organization, that strategy is broadcast to the organization with
instructions to “get it done” by whatever means they can employ.
Whatever the mission is, there might be different ways to act locally in
different settings to achieve the common outcome.
This is radically different from a bureaucratic structure that operates
within a structure of laws imposed by elected national, state or local
legislative bodies. It must be remembered that the United States was
founded as a Republic based on the Rule of Law. Government servants
were to uphold and implement the law and were not allowed to act
outside of those legal bounds no matter what the setting. Entire
government organizations as well as all of their employees were bound
by the same laws, to be interpreted in the same way in every issue and
practice.
The newly reinvented system of governance puts its emphasis on
implementing regulations rather than on enforcing laws. If legal
obstacles are encountered, the organization is empowered to take
whatever pragmatic approach they can devise to skirt the law in favor
of the regulation. If empowerment means pragmatism, which it does,
then it its perfectly with the other Technocratic goals that Clinton
expressed. The theoretical result of emphasizing regulations over laws
is a lawless government and could have been recognized as such in
1993.
How does this work in practice? Modern examples are all around us,
but none better than the breakdown of our southern border with
Mexico. Section 4 of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution states,
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them
against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the
Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against
domestic Violence.
In addition, there are many speci ic laws that state exactly how the
border is to be set up, who is allowed to enter, and under what terms
and conditions. The Executive Branch, on the other hand, chooses not
to enforce the law but rather enforces its own regulations even when
they are contrary to the law. In 2012, President Obama directed the
Department of Homeland Security to implement a new non-
deportation policy expressed in the form of regulations. This quickly
prompted a lawsuit by Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE)
agents to block the policies because it forced them to break the law and
the Constitution:
The lawsuit, iled in federal court in the Northern District of Texas,
argues that the administration policies fail to pass muster on three
grounds: They infringe on Congress’ right to set immigration policy,
they force ICE agents to disregard the 1996 law, and the Homeland
Security Department didn’t follow the federal Administrative
Procedure Act, which requires agencies to write regulations and put
them out for public comment before taking big steps.118
 In another matter on July 28, 2014, all Republican members of the
Texas House and Senate signed a letter to President Obama asking him
to enforce existing law on immigration. U.S. Representative Lamar
Smith (R-TX) stated, “The President has it in his power right now, if he
were to enforce current immigration laws, to stop this surge coming
across the border.”119
To say that the U.S. Border with Mexico is becoming a lawless
wasteland is an understatement. Illegal entrants lood all sections of
the border, knowing the odds of being detained are virtually nil. Many
even walk through border checkpoints with impunity, knowing that
border agents will not stop them. Required medical screening and
criminal background checks are not performed, and stated
destinations are not veri ied.
Border security may be an extreme example of an “empowered”
government, but it reveals the attitude and practice of Technocrats
who feel that their system of regulations and outcomes are more
important than standing laws, sitting Congressional representatives
and the Constitution. Someone may argue that things like this
happened prior to Clinton’s initiative to reinvent government, to which
I would answer, “Yes, there were instances of very bad government
behavior in the past, but now it has become the norm.” In the end, the
Executive and Legislative Branches of our government will be nose-to-
nose in a battle of will to see who gets to call the shots.
The old saying that “Possession is nine-tenths of the law” is false, but
it serves to make this point: The President is CEO over 2.2 million
Federal workers and has autonomous control over how the annual
budget is allocated and spent. Congress has 635 members. Who is
going to win when push comes to shove? We already know the answer
to this question, as the Executive Branch already treats Congress with
complete disregard and impunity, enforcing laws it wants to enforce
while ignoring laws it does not want to enforce. Even more alarming is
the almost total disregard for the U.S. Constitution.
In the end, reinventing government is about creating and
implementing a system of management control found in major global
corporations. Just like in the corporate world, there is no room for
disobedience or dissent. Compliance, conformity and loyalty to the
corporate mission statement are all that matters. Unlike people,
corporations don’t have a soul; they exist solely to make a pro it for
their stockholders. But the government doesn’t have stockholders,
does it? Let’s examine that question more closely.
The Alliance for Redesigning Government (ARG) is a non-pro it (NGO)
that was founded to create a learning network for change agents in
government at all levels for the express purpose of reinventing
government. IBM partnered with the ARG to provide the technology for
a comprehensive distance-learning system that would distribute
volumes of information to every corner of the nation. Financial
supporters at the top of the list included Anderson Consulting, AT&T,
General Electric, Goldman Sachs and Co., IBM, NYNEX, and Xerox.
Philanthropic donations poured in from ARCO Foundation, Aspen
Institute, Carnegie Corporation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Ford
Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Pew
Charitable Trusts, and the Rockefeller Foundation, among others. The
Board of Advisors included Trilateral Commission members Sen.
William Roth (R-Delaware) and John Sweeney, president of the AFL-
CIO.
The Alliance then formally introduced the Public-Private Partnerships
as a tool-of-choice for economic development. According to its own
literature,
Partnerships between government agencies and private for-pro it and
non-pro it organizations have proven to be an effective tool for
planning and implementing programs. Public-private partnerships
have been working effectively for many years. Susan and Norma
Fainstein in their research of “Public-Private Partnerships for Urban
(Re) Development in the United States” note that the original federal
urban renewal legislation in 1949 provided for locally operated
redevelopment authorities (public agencies) to acquire land using
powers of eminent domain and then to sell the land at a reduced
price to private corporations for development. [Ed. Note: this is
the scheme]
As economic growth has slowed and government resources have
 become more limited, public-private partnerships have formed to
undertake projects that had previously been funded by the federal
government. The Fainsteins’ research indicates that during the years
when Ronald Reagan was president, the federal government began a
policy of decentralization and deregulation. Funding for many
categorical entitlement urban development and social service
programs was eliminated and block grants were provided to states
and localities to be used at their discretion. At that time, the
Fainsteins’ report, the use of public-private partnerships changed
in nature. [Ed. Note: This is how the scheme is implemented] Private
for-pro it and not-for pro it corporations began to negotiate
partnerships undertaking economic development and affordable
housing rehabilitation and construction projects in exchange for
tax incentives, subsidies, or future pro its.120 [Emphasis added]
Does the government have stockholders? Absolutely! Global
corporations and banks, NGOs and globalist foundations. Furthermore,
they expect a return on their investments, namely, privatized
“sweetheart” deals that lock out competitors. In many cases, this gives
the “private” party a monopoly over the services offered. Citizens are
only seen as consumers.
Prior to the 1993 Clinton/Gore initiative, the goal of government was
to serve the people. Now the goal is not to serve the people but rather
to serve its stockholders. Previously, the goal was to facilitate a price-
based, free-market economic system. Now the goal is to facilitate an
energy-based green economy predicated on Sustainable Development
and Agenda 21 policies.
The bottom line is that our Federal government, as represented by
the Executive Branch and all of its agencies, no longer represents the
citizens of the nation, and that is why Congress and the Constitution
have been effectively neutered. Lastly, we see the clear trail of Trilateral
Commission members from start to inish.
Transforming Education
This topic could enjoy its own chapter heading, but the discussion is
placed here because education is controlled by the government and has
been transformed by it along with all the other Functional and Service
Sequences discussed above.
The 1930s Technocracy Study Course had much to say about
education, and it pointedly explains why modern technocrats have
undertaken the systemization of education in America under such
programs as No Child Left Behind and more recently, Common Core.
While we explored the concept of Functional Sequences earlier in this
chapter, more needs to be said about Service Sequences such as
education and health care which were seen as closely aligned with each
other for the sake of running a perfectly ef icient society. That
Technocracy proposed complete control over education is seen in
statements like,
Among the Service Sequences are education (this would embrace the
complete training of the younger generation), and public health
(medicine, dentistry, public hygiene, and all hospitals and
pharmaceutical plants as well as institutions for defectives).121
[Emphasis added]
The idea of “complete” points to social conditioning from birth to the
point of entering the workforce and beyond in the form of adult
education. Just as today’s public health is a cradle-to-grave Service
Sequence, so also is education, for the Technocrats saw the mental
state of the learner as a function of his conditioning. Thus, educational
conditioning and health care became inseparable disciplines which
could serve society only together in a permanently symbiotic fashion.
The joint record-keeping design is seen in statements like this:
There is, likewise, a complete record on all hospitals, on the
educational system, amusements, and others on the more purely
social services. This information makes it possible to know exactly
what to do at all times in order to maintain the operation of the social
mechanism at the highest possible load factor and ef iciency.122
There is no room for human individuality in Technocracy where the
only goal is to “maintain the operation of the social mechanism at the
highest possible load factor and ef iciency.” However, humans are not
merely machines, and neither is society. They are not to be valued only
by what they produce or how ef iciently they produce it. And yet,
Technocracy persisted in the outcome-based mentality where all of
society (and people therein) would be measured, analyzed, correlated,
corrected and conditioned from cradle to grave. I have purposely used
the term “outcome-based” to emphasize where this modern 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 a conditioning no different than training a dog or other
animal to repeat a task based on some predetermined stimulus.
Inherent ability beyond performing the task is super luous.
Technocracy, Inc. could not have been more clear on this:
The end products attained by a high-energy social mechanism on the
North American Continent will be
(a) a high physical standard of living, (b) a high standard of public
health, (c) a minimum of unnecessary labor, (d) a minimum of
wastage of non-replaceable resources, (e) an educational system to
train the entire younger generation indiscriminately as regards
all considerations other than inherent ability—a Continental
system of human conditioning.123 [Emphasis added]
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 in Agenda 21, and even more closely to the ones on
meeting basic needs, capacity-building, data and information, science,
and the role of major groups.124
It then follows up with the initial subject title, Reorienting education
towards sustainable development, which mirrors the earlier document:
Education, including formal education, public awareness and training
should be recognized as a process by which human beings and
societies can reach their fullest potential. Education is critical for
promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of
the people to address environment and development issues. While
basic education provides the underpinning for any environmental and
development education, the latter needs to be incorporated as an
essential part of learning… It is also critical for achieving
environmental and ethical awareness, values and attitudes, skills
and behavior consistent with sustainable development and for
 effective public participation in decision-making. To be effective,
environment and development education should deal with the
dynamics of both the physical/biological and socio-economic
environment and human (which may include spiritual) development,
should be integrated in all disciplines, and should employ formal and
non-formal methods and effective means of communication.125
This was a grand scheme of Agenda 21, but one for which it had no
direct means of developing or implementing; it merely pointed out that
reforming education is critical to the implementation of Agenda 21 in
its entirety. Later in Chapter 36, the solution is suggested:
Countries, assisted by international organizations, non-
governmental organizations and other sectors, could strengthen or
establish national or regional centres of excellence in interdisciplinary
research and education in environmental and developmental sciences,
law and the management of speci ic environmental problems.126
[Emphasis added]
Thus, when single nations are unable to reform education by
themselves, the task should be turned over to international
organizations (e.g., the United Nations) and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs). This is precisely what happened when the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation decided to fund the creation of the
Common Core State Standards that would be implemented throughout
the states and into every grade in every school in America. The
resulting set of standards was jointly copyrighted by two private
organizations, as stated on the CoreStandards.org web site:
Please be advised that any publication or public display must include
the following notice: “© Copyright 2010 National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State
School Of icers. All rights reserved.”127 [Emphasis added]
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which was the major
economic stimulus 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 a competitive education grant program called
“Race to the Top”. For states that quali ied, and all did, funds were
poured out like water to the inancially-stressed states. Of course,
strings were attached, but at the time they accepted the funds, the
states were not told exactly what they those strings were. There were
hints:

Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to

succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the
global economy;
Building data systems that measure student growth and
success, and inform teachers and principals about how they
can improve instruction.128

In fact, the states unwittingly signed on to accept the entirety of

Common Core State Standards that were still under development by
private organizations, funded by private donations. When the
publishing date arrived, it was the National Governors Association and
the Council of Chief State School Of icers who trotted out this Trojan
horse and simultaneously let down the stairway in 46 states. As word
began to trickle out to parents what had happened, a groundswell of
resistance suddenly appeared and continues to the present. Some
states have subsequently passed legislation to ban Common Core
altogether. Many parents pulled their kids out of government schools in
favor of home schooling but are still in a dilemma: the SAT tests
necessary for college entrance have already been redesigned to test for
Common Core material.
Not surprisingly, the Common Core curriculum is focused squarely on
Sustainable Development and Biodiversity issues with an over-the-top
layer of sexual content. What was formerly classed as education is now
transformed into indoctrination and conditioning, or training. This is
an important distinction to grasp: Humans receive education but
animals receive training. But to the technocrat mindset, humans are
only animals and thus should be trained as well.
In any case, adopting standards and building data systems are the top
priorities that the states signed on for. As mentioned above,
Technocracy coupled education with healthcare. It is also not
surprising that Obamacare and Common Core are tightly coupled in the
area of data collection. Common Core requires massive data collection
of up to 400 data points per student, whereas the Affordable Care Act
(ACA or “Obamacare”) requires comprehensive and ongoing data
collection without limitation. But is there any direct relationship
between Common Core and Obamacare? Yes!
Under Subtitle B, Section 4101 of the Affordable Care Act, a grant
program was authorized for the establishment of school-based health
centers (SBHC).
PROGRAM.—The Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this
subsection referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall establish a program to
award grants to eligible entities to support the operation of school-
based health centers.129
Essentially, this is a merging of the school with the health care
system, and the ACA clearly explains the details for delivery of health
services, but more importantly, the integration of data collection:
Sec. 399Z-1 (A). PHYSICAL. - Comprehensive health assessments,
diagnosis, and treatment of minor, acute, and chronic medical
conditions, and referrals to, and follow-up for, specialty care and oral
health services
Sec. 399Z-1 (B). MENTAL HEALTH. - Mental health and substance
use disorder assessments, crisis intervention, counseling, treatment,
and referral to a continuum of services including emergency
psychiatric care, community support programs, in-patient care, and
outpatient programs.130 [Emphasis added]
The term “assessment” refers to comprehensive collection of data
and if anyone would doubt that, this phrase will remove all doubt: “the
SBHC will comply with Federal, State, and local laws concerning patient
privacy and student records.”131
All data collected from K-1 through K-12 will be associated with the
student for life, and since it is collected during “assessments” by largely
unquali ied personnel, the student will be forever tainted by the
collector’s opinions. This is not only wrong-headed, but it is patently
dangerous for the individual as well as society as a whole; there are no
provisions to correct or appeal data wrongly entered or data based on
bad opinions.
 I have publicly stated many times that Obamacare is not about
healthcare but about collecting data. The same is true of Common Core.
It is not about education but rather about collecting data. Now that
these two branches of Service Functions have been fused together, yet
another key criteria of original Technocracy has been fully met. The
machine that will train the future work force now has the perfect
monitoring and control system in place that will enable it to function.
113 Hubbert and Scott, p. 218.
114 “California’s dark legacy of forced sterilizations”, CNN Health, March 15, 2002
115 Franklin Harris, Jr., “Reinventing Government”, Freeman, May 1 1993.
116 UN Public Administration Programme, The Global Forum on Reinventing Government,
(http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan026997.pdf).
117 Breul and Kamensky, “Federal Government Reform: Lessons from Clinton’s ‘Reinventing Government’ and
Bush’s ‘Management Agenda’ Initiatives”, Public Administration Review Vol. 68, No. 6 , (Nov. - Dec., 2008), pp.
1009-1026.
118 “Immigration agents sue to stop Obama’s non-deportation policy”, Washington Times, August 23, 2012.
119 “Texas GOP Congressmen to Obama: Enforce Existing Immigration Law”, WOAI News Radio, July 28, 2014.
120 “Government Partnerships”, Alliance for Reinventing Government web site, 2000.
121 Hubbert & Scott, p. 218.
122 Ibid., p. 232.
123 Ibid.
124 Daniel Sitarz ed., Agenda 21: The Earth Summit strategy to save our planet, United Nations Conference on Environment &
Development, (Earth Press, 1993), Chap. 36, p. 320.
125 Ibid.
126 Ibid., p. 323.
127 Common Core copyright notice (http://www.corestandards.org).
128 “Race to the Top”, Executive Summary, (Department of Education, 2014),
(http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html).
129 Affordable Care Act, 2009, p. 1135.
130 Ibid., p. 1137.
131 Ibid., p. 1138.
 CHAPTER 6
TRANSFORMING RELIGION
I t has already been stated that society rests on three identical
pillars: Economics, Politics and Religion. To the extent that they
are compatible with each other, a society will prosper. Likewise, society
will falter to the extent of disharmony or outright removal of one or
more pillars. In America, all three areas are under attack at the same
time. It is therefore no wonder that society is straining at the seams, or
that it seems so different today compared to 40 years ago.

Our existing price-based economic system is being

reinvented with new and untested “green” economic theories
that decouple resource use from economic growth.
Our political system of Constitutional Rule of Law is being
replaced by a system of autocratic regulations, created and
enforced by unelected and unaccountable Technocrats.
Our moral system of Judeo-Christian ethics has been
consistently excluded from government, with a seemingly
impenetrable barrier placed between church and state and is
being replaced with a humanistic religion based on
Scientism.

Having a Constitution that was originally based on principles of

Biblical Christianity, it is therefore no wonder that respect for the
Constitution has slipped in direct proportion to respect of Christianity.
John Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and the
second President of the U.S., declared,
We have no government armed with power capable of contending
with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our
constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
wholly inadequate to the government of any other.132
Since America has already moved on from any sense of an absolute
morality and scoffs at a religion that would dare to put constraints on
aberrant behavior, the Constitution truly is an inadequate document
for the 21st century.
The sum of this is that the architects of Technocracy knew full well
that every pillar of society must be reinvented lest their utopian dream
quickly falter and fail. We have already examined the economic and
political and must now turn to religion to see how it will all it together.
As discussed in the irst chapter of this book, Scientism is an
extension of Positivism, which is based on a mixture of pseudo-science
and empirical science. It states that science alone, with its self-selected
priesthood of engineers and scientists, is the only source of truth about
the nature of man, the physical world and universal reality. By
de inition it rejects the existence of God and all notions of divine truth
as are found in the Bible. Since Scientism generally undergirds
Technocracy, we must see how it also supports post-modern religion
and practices.
Scientism has much in common with Humanism in that it is
exclusively man-centered. In other words, it is all about what man can
achieve through his own knowledge and skills. This is not to be
confused with empirical science where the Scienti ic Method can be
used to create repeatable experiments. Scientism associates itself with
empirical science in order to gain credibility, but it uses pseudo-
science to trick adherents into believing something that is false. The
Oxford Dictionary de ines pseudo-science as “A collection of beliefs or
practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scienti ic method.”
Some of these beliefs and practices may appear as pure magic to the
uninitiated, but they are nevertheless promoted as being “based in
science” and are therefore infallible and immutable.
What sets a philosophy apart from a cult is whether or not a
priesthood is necessary to interpret. Anyone can learn about and
discuss the philosophies of ancient Greece for instance, and in that
sense they are attainable by all. However, when knowledge is so
obfuscated that it requires an interpreter or an oracle to explain it to
common people, a priesthood is born and a cult is formed around it. To
understand what the “god” of science has to say today, you must
inquire of the “priest” of science, and you must decide to take his
“teachings” by faith, even if there is empirical evidence to the contrary.
Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) was already noted to be the early
father of modern Technocracy. He believed that a scienti ic elite would
ultimately rule over all facets of societal affairs. However, Saint-Simon
also had an outspoken position on religion, as expressed in his 1825
work, New Christianity. After upbraiding both Catholics and Protestants
for gross heresies against what he viewed as the “divine principle”, his
consistent demand was that
The main aim which you should urge men to work for is the
improvement of the moral and physical condition of the most
numerous class; and you should create a form of social organization
suitable for the encouragement of this work, and to ensure that it has
priority over all other undertakings, however important they may
seem.133
Thus, the social organization designed to relieve poverty and war was
the irst and only important goal of religion. It was a great
“brotherhood of man” that would save the world and a call for churches
to become, in essence, community organizers. In the next paragraph,
Saint-Simon revealed more compelling details:
Now that the size of the planet is known, you should make the
scientists, artists, and industrialists draw up a general plan of
enterprises designed to make the domain of the human race as
productive and agreeable as possible in every way.134 [Emphasis
added]
This may be the irst call to use churches to drive technocrats for the
common purpose of remaking society from a holistic perspective, and
completely focused on man. By the turn of the century, a more formal
doctrine of Humanism had been developed, and it was represented by
the American Ethical Union whose legal arm was the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU). At the peak of Technocracy fever in 1933,
“Humanist Manifesto I” was published and read in part,
Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions
the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new
conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience…
Today man’s larger understanding of the universe, his scienti ic
 achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created
a situation which requires a new statement of the means and
purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable
of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may
appear to many people as a complete break with the past.135
This was not an anomaly. Forty years later in 1973, “Humanist
Manifesto II” was published and continued the same line of thinking:
The next century can be and should be the humanistic century.
Dramatic scienti ic, technological, and ever-accelerating social and
political changes crowd our awareness…. Using technology wisely, we
can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce
disease, extend our life-span, signi icantly modify our behavior, alter
the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock
vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled
opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.136
[Emphasis added]
In both Manifestos, one can see the early in luence of Saint-Simon’s
brotherhood of man ruled by a technological elite. In the second
instance, attention must be given to the phrase, “alter the course of
human evolution” because it introduces for the irst time the concept
of Transhumanism which will be explored shortly in the chapter
Transforming Humanity.
By the time “Humanist Manifesto III” was published in 2003, the
focus was sharpened but not changed:
Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation,
and rational analysis. Humanists ind that science is the best method
for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and
developing bene icial technologies…. Working to bene it society
maximizes individual happiness… we support a just distribution of
nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as
possible can enjoy a good life.137
By now, you should see the dovetailing of purpose between
Humanism and Technocracy: Scienti ic Method, Sustainable
Development, reallocation of nature’s resources, and the utopian goal
of everyone enjoying the good life. This merging of purpose didn’t
happen by accident, and to understand it further, a look at the Aspen
Institute for Humanistic Studies is in order.
Humanism today has been “taught” throughout the business world
by the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, particularly to the
multinational corporation community. The major inanciers of Aspen
also are the major inanciers of Trilateralism, and as of 1980, no fewer
than seven members of the Trilateral Commission were serving on the
board of directors.
Aspen Institute was founded in 1949 by Professor Giuseppe Borgese,
Chancellor Robert M. Hutchins (both of University of Chicago) and
Walter Paepcke, a Chicago businessman. In 1957, Robert O. Anderson
became chairman and was its guiding force until 1969. (Anderson
became a member of the Trilateral Commission upon its founding in
1973.) In 1969, chairmanship switched to Joseph E. Slater, a member of
the Council on Foreign Relations and formerly of the Ford Foundation.
In 1989, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies shortened its name
to the Aspen Institute, perhaps to somewhat mask its ongoing focus on
humanism.
The two leading foundations contributing to Aspen were Atlantic-
Rich ield (ARCO) and the Rockefeller Foundation. Moreover, the largest
single institutional shareholder in ARCO was Chase Manhattan (4.5%)
and the largest individual shareholder was Robert O. Anderson who
was also on the board of directors of Chase Manhattan Bank. Other
backers represented the Morgan banking interests, indicating that the
majority of inancing came from the international banks in New York
City, and more speci ically, from foundations controlled by Rockefeller
and Morgan interests. Another surprise donor was revealed to be the
National Endowment for the Arts (taxpayer-funded), which provided
almost one-third of Aspen’s total inancing in 1979.
Today, funding sources continue to include major globalist
foundations that are tightly connected to members of the Trilateral
Commission, including the Carnegie Foundation, Ford Foundation,
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, David and Lucile Packard
Foundation, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund and
the Rockefeller Foundation. Directors and trustees over the years have
included individual Trilateral members such as John Brademas,
William T. Coleman, Jr., Umberto Colombo (Italy), Robert S. Ingersol,
Henry Kissinger, Paul Volker, Robert McNamara, Madeleine K.
Albright, Yotaro Kobayashi (Japan), Walter Isaacson, Gerald M.
Levin, Mortimer B. Zuckerman and others.
The prestigious foreign policy arm of Aspen Institute, the Aspen
Strategy Group, lists no fewer than 14 members of the Trilateral
Commission, including Madeleine K. Albright, Graham Allison, Zoe
Baird, Richard Cooper, John Deutch, Dianne Feinstein, Richard
Haass, Joseph Nye, Condoleezza Rice, Strobe Talbot, Fareed Zakaria
and Robert Zoellick.
To say that Aspen Institute is a captive audience for Trilateral
Commission hegemony is an understatement. To realize that they have
taught humanism to tens of thousands of top corporate executives
from all over the world is staggering.
In 2005, Aspen’s President was Trilateral Commissioner Walter
Isaacson. His “Letter from the President” stated,
The original goal of the Aspen Institute, in the words of one of its
earliest mission statements, was for American business leaders to lift
their sights above the possessions which possess them, to confront
their own nature as human beings, to regain control over their own
humanity by becoming more self-aware, more self-correcting and
hence more self-ful illing.
...But our core mission remains the same. We seek to foster
enlightened leadership and open-minded dialogue. Through
seminars, policy programs, conferences and leadership
development initiatives, the Institute and its international partners
seek to promote nonpartisan inquiry and an appreciation for timeless
values.
We help people become more enlightened in their work and enriched
in their lives. Together we can learn one of the keys to being successful
in business, leadership and life: balancing con licting values in order to
ind common ground with our fellow citizens while remaining true to
basic ideals.138 [Emphasis added]
Religious buzzwords seen above include self-aware, self-correcting,
self-ful illing, enlightened leadership, open-minded dialogue, timeless
values, balancing con licting values and so on. Some readers might
equate such terms to New Age Enlightenment, and that would be
correct. In striving for pragmatic solutions, Humanists are inclusive
and intensely man-centered rather than tradition-centered. In Aspen’s
case, whether anyone else knew it or not, its religious humanistic
agenda was closely aligned with the Trilateral Commission to
implement its New International Economic Order, namely, global
Technocracy.
United Religions Initiative (URI)
URI was founded in 1993 by William Swing, Bishop of the Episcopal
Church Diocese of California, as an interfaith organization that sought
to bind religions of the world into one common organization. The
concept of interfaith organizations was nothing new, but few had made
much headway in a con lict-ridden world. By contrast, URI grew at a
spectacular rate, up to 100% per year. In his book, False Dawn, Lee
Penn writes,
In 2002, New Age author Neale Donald Walsch said that the URI is
“more global in scope, and more universal in reach” than other
interfaith organizations, adding that “I am not sure that any other
interfaith organization casts that wide a net.”139
The people and organizations who have drawn close to URI are
striking: The World Economic Forum, Earth Charter Initiative, Ted
Turner, Ford Foundation, Dee Hock (inventor of the VISA credit card,
founder and former CEO of VISA International), Maurice Strong
(Canadian billionaire and organizer of the U.N.’s 1992 Rio Conference)
and Bill Gates among others. Former Secretary of State and ex-
Chairman of Bechtel Group George P. Shultz, also a member of the
Trilateral Commission, is listed as an Honorary Chair of the President’s
council. The URI is also closely allied with the United Nations. At least
two URI summit conferences have been held at Stanford University.
Carnegie-Melon University in Pittsburgh hosted the 2000 conference.
In 2000, URI co-sponsored the World Millennium Peace Summit of
Religious and Spiritual Leaders held at the United Nations in New York
City. The Secretary-General of the meeting was Bawa Jain. After the
conference, Jain was interviewed by James Harder of Insight On The
News as saying,
What we need to engage in is an education factor of the different
religious traditions and the different theologies and philosophies and
practices. That would give us a better understanding, and then I think
[we have to deal with] the claims of absolute truth - we will recognize
there is not just one claim of absolute truth, but there is truth in every
tradition. That is happening more and more when you have
gatherings such as these.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 heavy representation of eastern religions. Ted
Turner, who gave a keynote address at the Summit, denounced his
childhood Christian faith because “it was intolerant because it taught
we were the only ones going to heaven.”
What does URI have to do with anything other than religion? Well,
here we are coming back around to the primary topic of this book, as
stated in the URI preamble:
We unite in responsible cooperative action to bring the wisdom and
values of our religions, spiritual expressions and indigenous traditions
to bear on the economic, environmental, political and social
challenges facing our Earth community.141 [Emphasis added]
In their document “Principles of URI,” item 10 rings out as if it were
taken directly out of the book, Our Common Future, that kicked off
Agenda 21 at the 1992 Rio Conference:
We act from sound ecological practices to protect and preserve the
Earth for both present and future generations.142
URI does not have an exclusive arrangement with the global elite to
promote interfaith reconciliation based on ecology, Sustainable
Development, Agenda 21 or the green economy, but the reader should
at least see the common purpose, common funding and common
alignment with the same global elite who are intent on reinventing the
world for Technocracy.
The Earth Charter Initiative
 Although earlier but unsuccessful calls for an Earth Charter were
made by various other people, the authoritative call came in 1987 from
Trilateral Commission member Gro Brundtland of Norway, the
principal author of Our Common Future that led to the Earth Summit in
1992.
In 1992, Maurice Strong, a Canadian billionaire, was Secretary-
General of the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development that sponsored and conducted the Earth Summit in Rio
de Janeiro that produced the of icial Agenda 21 document on
Sustainable Development. In his opening statement, he declared,
It is, therefore, of the highest importance that all Governments commit
themselves to translate the decisions they take collectively here to
national policies and practices required to give effect to them,
particularly implementation of Agenda 21.143 [Emphasis added]
Mikhail Gorbachev was the last president of the Soviet U.S.S.R. before
it broke up in 1992, but he attended Strong’s Earth Summit in that
same year. Soon thereafter, with encouragement from Rio delegates, he
founded Green Cross International “to help ensure a just, sustainable
and secure future for all by fostering a value shift and cultivating a new
sense of global interdependence and shared responsibility in
humanity’s relationship with nature.”144
A common connection between Brundtland, Strong and Gorbachev
was the elitist Club of Rome where all three were members and Strong
and Gorbachev were directors.
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 Charter indoctrination is meant to take place through education
and religion, which is one reason that it was strongly supported by URI.
Strong himself stated, “the real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in
fact become like the Ten Commandments.”145 Gorbachev was
interviewed in 1996 and said, “Cosmos is my God. Nature is my God.”146
It could not be more clear where they were coming from.
In 1996, after three international consultations on what the Earth
Charter might contain, a drafting committee was formed and Steven C.
Rockefeller was appointed to lead it. Son of the late Nelson A.
Rockefeller and nephew of Trilateral Commission founder David
Rockefeller, Steven was soon appointed to be the Co-Chair of Earth
Charter International Council. He became the principal spokesperson
and evangelist for the Earth Charter as it was formally adopted in 2000.
Rockefeller was chosen because of his religious career and education.
He received his Master of Divinity from the Union Theological
Seminary in New York City and his Ph.D. in the philosophy of religion
from Columbia University. He was Professor emeritus of Religion at
Middlebury College in Vermont and also served as Dean of the College.
His inancial connection to the Rockefeller dynasty was evident in his
chairmanship of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund where his uncle David
is director. Most importantly to this discussion, he was Chairman of the
Earth Charter International Drafting Committee.
The full text of the Earth Charter is seen in Appendix III of this book,
and it is useful to see that much of the text is a virtual duplication of
ideas that sprang from the Earth Summit in 1992 and Agenda 21.
However, the spiritual nature of the Earth Charter is clearly seen with
statements such as,

The emergence of a global civil society is creating new

opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our
environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual
challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge
inclusive solutions.
The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media,
businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments
are all called to offer creative leadership.
Af irm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings and in
the intellectual, artistic, ethical, and spiritual potential of
humanity.
Recognize and preserve the traditional knowledge and spiritual
wisdom in all cultures that contribute to environmental
protection and human well-being.
Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and
 social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health,
and spiritual well-being.
Af irm the right of indigenous peoples to their spirituality.
Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritual
signi icance.
Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for
sustainable living.
Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual
challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge
inclusive solutions. 147

On September 9, 2001, just two days before the infamy of 9/11, a

celebration of the Earth Charter was held in Vermont and attended by
Steven Rockefeller. The event revealed an elaborately decorated Ark of
Hope, modeled loosely after the Biblical Ark of the Covenant, wherein a
hand-written copy of the Earth Charter on papyrus was placed inside
with other supposedly sacred items. After 9/11, the two hundred
pound Ark was ceremoniously carried on foot from Vermont to the
United Nations headquarters in New York City where it was placed on
display. The two ninety-six inch carrying poles were reportedly made
from unicorn horns which would ward off evil. For the irst time, the
religion of the New World Order possessed a tangible icon to be used as
an object of worship.
In 2005, in response to the United Nations declaration of a ten-year
period to be the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, the
Earth Charter Initiative published the Earth Charter Guidebook for
Teachers. It was subsequently promoted and distributed to tens of
thousands of schools around the world. The guiding philosophy of the
teaching tool is stated on the irst page: “Af irm faith in the inherent
dignity of all human beings and in the intellectual, artistic, ethical, and
spiritual potential of human beings.”148 The reader should note that
while schools are ready and eager to teach Humanism, they are blocked
from teaching anything from the doctrines and ethical values of Biblical
Christianity.
In like fashion, the Earth Charter Initiative has contacted tens of
thousands of churches around the world, persuading many to endorse
and join the Earth Charter. Initiates include the Episcopal Church,
Presbyterian Church, United Church of Christ, United Church of Canada,
National Council of Churches, World Council of Churches, World YMCA,
World Council of Religions Leaders, many Catholic orders, and so on.
In summary, these three examples - Aspen Institute, United Religions
Initiative and the Earth Charter - give a clear message that the global
elite who are implementing a coordinated system of Technocracy are
intensely interested in promoting a system of sustainable religion
based on Humanism alongside the economic and governance system
and thus completing their strategy for a transformed and sustainable
global society. Will it work? It is doubtful, but if it does succeed, the
result will be something akin to Aldous Huxley’s scienti ic dictatorship
in his 1932 book Brave New World.
The “Green” World Council of Churches
The World Council of Churches (WCC) represents 349 member
denominations, which collectively represent over 560 million
members in 110 nations. It has been a leader in the Interfaith
movement as long as there has been a movement and was a signatory
to the Earth Charter. Most importantly, it is a prime example of the new
“green theology” being adopted by churches globally.
A founding member of the WCC is the Ecumenical Patriarchate of
Constantinople. Patriarch Bartholomew sent an of icial message to the
Interfaith Summit on Climate Change held during September 2014, co-
sponsored by the WCC and organized by the U.N. He stated,
Each believer and each leader, each ield and each discipline, each
institution and each individual must be touched by the call to change
our greedy ways and destructive habits [for the sake of climate
justice] ... unless we change the way we live; we cannot hope to avoid
ecological damage. This means that – instead of solely depending on
governments and experts for answers – each of us must become
accountable for our slightest gesture and act in order to reverse the
path that we are on, which will of course also include prevailing upon
governments and leaders for the creation and application of collective
policy and practice.149
 To say that the ecumenical world has been drawn into the web of
Sustainable Development is an understatement. In fact, it is
wholeheartedly and unequivocally driving the process at the local level,
thanks to the United Nations and its global push for the “green
economy” of Technocracy. The U.N knows that its agenda would fail
without such massive and grass-roots support of religions around the
world, and this conference delivered.
One observer to the conference, the Executive Director of GreenFaith,
observed,
In the midst of Climate Week this year, the collection of religious events
taking place in New York City around the UN Climate Summit is
astounding. From the launch of the international multi-faith Our
Voices Campaign at the UN Church Center to the Religions for the
Earth conference at Union Seminary to the People’s Climate March,
where thousands of people of faith from over twenty different religious
traditions will participate, to the multi-faith service at St. John the
Divine to a number of other related faith events -- there has never
been such a large amount of religious-environmental activity in
one location in the history of the world. This week will mark a
watershed in the history of religion. It will be the time that people
remember as the time when the world’s faiths declared
themselves, irrevocably, as green faiths.150 [Emphasis added]
This unabashed support for Sustainable Development did not
develop overnight, but rather after the consistent plodding and
conditioning over a period of decades. The result today is the
completion of Peter Drucker’s beloved three-legged stool model, where
politics, economics, and religion intersect with a common agenda to
create the utopian global society.
132 John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams,
editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798
133 Henri Saint-Simon, The New Christianity, (1825).
134 Ibid.
135 Humanist Manifesto I, The New Humanist, Vol. VI, No.3, 1933.
136 Humanist Manifesto II. The Humanist, Vol. XXXIII, No. 5.6, 1973.
137 “Humanist Manifesto III”, The Humanist, 2003
(http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III).
138 Aspen Institute, “Letter From the President”, (http://www.aspeninstitute.org).
139 Lee Penn, False Dawn, (Sophia Perennis, 2005) p. 43.
140 James Harder Radio Show, “U.N. Faithful Eye Global Religion”, 2000.
141 United Religions Initiative, About Page, (http://www.uri.org/about_uri).
142 Ibid.
143 Maurice Strong, “Opening Remarks”, Earth Summit, 1992.
144 “Mission Statement”, Green Cross International, (http://www.gcint.org/our-mission).
145 Speech by Maurice Strong, Earth Charter Initiative (1996).
146 Mikhail Gorbachev, interview on the PBS Charlie Rose Show, Oct. 23, 1996.
147 Op. Cit.
148 Mohit Mukherjee, An Earth Charter Guidebook for Teachers, (The Earth Charter Initiative International
Secretariat, 2005).
149 “To save the earth, all must change their ways,”, World Council of Churches Press Release, September 19,
2014.
150 “For the Good of Our Shared Earth: The World Council of Churchess and ‘Religions for the Earth, Huffington
Post, September 10, 2014.
 CHAPTER 7
T L

A merica was founded upon a Constitution that established a

framework of formal law, where society was to be governed by
the Rule of Law and not individual government of icials. The law was to
be clear to understand and then uniformly applied to every citizen
regardless of race, religion, creed or economic achievement. In fact, the
phrase “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW” is engraved on the front of the
U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.
The globalization process to establish the New International
Economic Order, or Green Economy, was simply not possible if it were
to be ruled by law and not men. In fact, the advance of global
transformation could not have taken place at all amidst the myriad of
legal systems that are found within the nation-states of the world
unless there was some new supra-national legal theory that was
capable of either trumping or subverting those various legal systems.
Many corporations, for instance, conduct business in one state where
their activities and practices are completely legal; but when they
conduct business in another country, those same practices may be
declared illegal. Thus, the transformation of law became necessary in
order to enable the rise of the Trilateral Commission’s New
International Economic Order and Technocracy. In the process, this
unfortunately crushed the U.S. Constitution and turned the Rule of Law
upside-down. Other formerly sovereign nations are in the same boat.
The siren-call of globalization is “self-regulation” of industries and
trade. The banking industry in New York wants to be self-regulated. The
securities industry wants to be self-regulated. The oil industry wants to
be self-regulated. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an
expression of self-regulation. What does self-regulation mean? In
essence, it means that national authorities backed by national law
should keep their hands in their own pockets and let these industries
take care of their own policies, regulations, laws and policing.
 The new legal theory to accomplish this is called “Re lexive Law”. The
term was originally coined in 1982 by a German legal scholar, Gunther
Teubner. The German Law Journal gives us a basic tutorial on the use of
the word re lexive:
Re lexive describes “an action that is directed back upon itself ”. For the
purposes of Systems Theory re lexivity is de ined as the application of
a process to itself, e.g. “thinking of thinking”, “communicating about
communication”, “teaching how to teach” etc. In the context of law
re lexivity could be “making laws on law-making”, “adjudicating on
adjudication”, or “regulating self-regulation”. It is obvious, that the
focus of Re lexive Law in this context is rather on procedural than on
substantive law.151
Systems Theory, a foundational concept of Technocracy, is based on
self-regulating systems that depend on feedback for self-regulation,
such as systems found in weather, ecosystems, life processes, etc. As it
applies to law, the law itself is designed to be self-correcting as it goes
along, using feedback from the object being regulated.
The Journal then goes on to explain:
Another meaning of re lexive is “marked by or capable of re lection”,
referring to re lexion in its philosophical meaning of “introspective
contemplation or consideration of some subject matter”. Here one can
ind the normative implications of Re lexive Law as being connected
with a concept of rationality. However, rationality is not understood as
a quality of norms, but in accordance with Discourse Theory rather as
communicative rationality. In a nutshell, decision-making in a
re lexive legal system shall be marked by thorough deliberation or
reasoning as well as by re lection on the speci ic function and limits of
law in modern society.152
Discourse Theory is a postmodern tenet that consensus is achieved
by discourse among the various actors involved in a particular issue.
Such discourse can include any form of communication plus any
amount of outside information that bears on the subject. Thus, papers,
studies, related science, expert witnesses, etc., can be brought to a
discourse to in luence the discussion and the resulting consensus or
outcomes.
 Lastly, the Journal adds, “a third meaning of re lexive is ‘a relation that
exists between an entity and itself’, i.e. a concept of self-reference. This
leads us to the very basic concept of Autopoiesis.” Autopoiesis
originally referred to the biological world where a cell, for instance, is
capable of reproducing itself. The term was later applied to sociology
and then to law by Teubner. From a political and legal point of view, it
refers to the gradual rise of order out of chaos.153 Another European
legal scholar expands the topic:
Autopoietic law radicalizes the functionalist’s instrumentalization of
law as a means of social engineering by leaving the driver’s seat
empty. Rejecting the idea that law, from any single “outside” point,
could determine the outcome of social con licts, autopoietic law
stresses the way in which law is a mere, yet highly particular, form of
communication.154
This is a very dif icult topic to understand. Essentially, Re lexive Law
assumes that social norms (determined by discourse) are chaotic
when compared to substantive or formal law. By applying System
Theory, these norms are discovered and then codi ied with rules that
are formulated to reinforce them on a larger scale. As rules are
developed and added to other rules, what appeared chaotic is now
supposed to have order and harmony. However, the thought of order
from chaos is no better than Darwin’s unproven theory that species
evolve from less complex to more complex. The legal world today
experiences more chaos than ever before.
The problem with Re lexive Law is that it cannot operate in a vacuum,
as is suggested, but is at all times subject to those who control it. It is
ripe for manipulation. Re lexive Law practitioners can thus direct the
discourse, the outcome, and the rule-making, in a very real sense like
the old West vigilante concept of the local self-appointed sheriff being
“judge, jury and executioner”.
Re lexive Law is often associated with the Latin term, lex mercatoria,
meaning “merchant law”. Historically, merchant law was used by
merchants (mostly shipping) during the medieval period to settle
disputes, and courtrooms were set up along trade routes to hear cases.
Merchants made their own laws and rules according to trade customs
and best practices, both of which were constantly changing according
to the mood of the trade industry. That Re lexive Law is pointed
directly at economic issues is seen in statements like,
Recent research owes much to Teubner’s concept of re lexive law, a
self-governing system or form of regulated self-regulation. From this
standpoint, lex mercatoria is a paradigm of the new global law. It
consists less of detailed rules than of broad principles, such as good
faith. Its boundaries are markets, professional communities or social
networks, not territories. Instead of being relatively autonomous from
political institutions, it depends heavily on other social ields being
especially subject to economic pressures. It is not uni ied but
decentered and non-hierarchical. Stimulated by globalisation, it
constantly breaks the hierarchical frame of the national constitution
within which private rule-making takes place, resulting in a new
heterarchical frame, a characteristic of this new global non-state
law.155
The last sentence in particular is highly charged: Re lexive Law
breaks down private rule-making by a national constitution and duly-
elected representatives, replacing it instead with a “new global non-
state law”.
Furthermore, lex mercatoria speci ically applies to environmental
law. The economic system of Technocracy is working itself out through
what the United Nations has termed the “Green Economy”. It is based
on Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 policies. Thus, it would be
no surprise that Re lexive Law is playing the role of enforcer on a global
scale. One environmental law journal states,
Rather than trying to regulate a social problem as a whole, re lexive
law aims to enlist other social institutions to treat the issue. Re lexive
legal strategies look to in luence the processes of intermediary
institutions, such as government agencies and companies, rather than
to regulate social behavior directly.
Re lexive law attempts to provide solutions to the gridlock of modem
law. Re lexive solutions of load some of the weight of social regulation
from the legal system to other social actors. This is accomplished by
proceduralization. Rather than detailed pronouncements of
 acceptable behavior, the law adopts procedures for regulated entities
to follow. The procedures are adopted with a design in mind to
encourage thinking and behavior in the right direction.156
Another environmental law journal is more direct:
At the same time, sustainable development’s broad sweep strains our
intellectual grasp of its meaning and outruns the capacity of our
current legal and political systems to channel society’s activities
toward its achievement… there is no doubt that sustainable
development needs new paradigms to transform it from visionary
rhetoric to a viable political goal.157 [Emphasis added]
Apparently, Sustainable Development was merely visionary rhetoric
until Re lexive Law was applied. Here we see Re lexive Law being used
as a direct means to achieve a political goal, namely, the
implementation of Sustainable Development. Did citizens of the world
vote on the merits of imposing Sustainable Development? Hardly. As
noted earlier, Sustainable Development was conceived by the
Brundtland Commission led by Trilateral Commission member Gro
Brundtland. Did the citizens of the world vote on policies created by
the United Nations’ Agenda 21? No. They were conceived by the same
global elite who had a very narrow and pre-conceived political agenda
that would not be deterred by public opinion or dissent.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established by
Congress under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
At that time, Re lexive Law was not yet a gleam in Technocracy’s eye.
The Act “requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values
into their decision making processes by considering the environmental
impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those
actions.”158
Most Americans simply shake their heads at the crazy rulings and
regulations that are produced by the EPA on a continual basis. They see
no rhyme or reason to it, but if they were to read Technocracy Rising,
they would understand perfectly. By 2002, the EPA was in full stride.
The same environmental journal from above makes it perfectly clear:
In public law, the requirement that federal agencies prepare an
environmental impact statement on proposed actions under the
 National Environmental Policy Act (hereinafter NEPA) has been
clearly de ined by the Supreme Court as a strictly procedural
requirement. This makes NEPA quintessentially re lexive; the
agency is required to study and think about environmental effects, but
once the statement has been prepared, the agency is free to
choose a decision that is more environmentally harmful than
other options.159 [Emphasis added]
Indeed, the EPA is “quintessentially re lexive”. Once it has made up its
mind on an issue, it can do whatever it pleases to bring it about - again,
judge, jury and executioner all in one package.
If it is not already evident, Re lexive Law is always seen in
conjunction with social control, that is, how one thinks and behaves. It
seeks a recursive and reiterative path to keep pushing at a problem
until there is uniform compliance. Perhaps the only way to explain this
is through two concrete examples.
In 2003, Stanford University released a book titled Greening NAFTA
(NAFTA stands for the North American Free Trade Agreement). A friend
had recommended it to me because it contained details about a
supplemental treaty to NAFTA called the North American Agreement
on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). The NAAEC in turn had
created the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation,
or CEC. As it turns out, the CEC was “the irst international organization
created to address the environmental aspects of economic
integration.”160
As I reviewed the book, my eyes fell on a chapter title toward the
back, Coordinating Land and Water Use in the San Pedro River Basin. The
San Pedro River is in southern Arizona, and it just so happened that I
had owned a ranch on that same river when I irst got out of college in
1968, and so I knew the area like the back of my hand. My interest was
immediately aroused. According to the book, the San Pedro River Basin
was the irst instance of CEC involvement in the U.S. because it was a
small and relatively unimportant area and because the headwaters of
the San Pedro River originated in Mexico just south of the U.S. border.
Greening NAFTA explains,
Under Articles 13 and 14 [of NAAEC], the Secretariat can accept and
 review citizen submissions alleging that one of the three countries is
not enforcing its existing environmental laws.161
In the case of the San Pedro River Basin submission (i.e., complaint) it
came not from a citizen, but from the radical environmental group
based out of Tucson, the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity
(SCBD). The SCBD was all worked up that environmental damage was
being perpetrated along the river by the landowners, farmers and
ranchers who lived there. They had no concrete proof that their
allegations were substantive or even accurate at all. It was simply an a
priori accusation on their part, but the mere charge was enough to set
off a chain of events that changed the San Pedro River Basin forever.
Here is where the plot thickens. The authors explain:
Article 13 can be characterized as an example of postmodern, “soft” or
“re lexive” international law because it seeks to in luence public and
private behavior without the threat of the enforcement of traditional,
sanction-based “hard” law.162
Greening NAFTA now explains exactly what Re lexive Law entails:
Re lexive law tries to align systematically legal rules with norms that
the relevant actors will internalize. It builds on the realization that the
reasons why people actually obey law ultimately lie outside formal
adjudication and the power of the state to enforce rules.163
Again, Re lexive Law starts out with desired outcomes created by the
unelected and unaccountable actors for which there are no speci ic
laws. Of course, they could have appealed to Congress to create
legislation, as would be required by the Constitution, but Congress
would never go along with this scheme. At the end of the re lexive
process, described below, the actual outcomes depended on how well
the stakeholders “internalized” what was proposed. In other words,
there was no actual legal process at all, but rather a jawboning process
that conned the actors into compliance.
“Information disclosure” was shown to be a principal policy
instrument of Re lexive Law. That is, the analysis produced along the
lines of Discourse Theory was presented with its “recommended
outcomes”. Public meetings were then held to build consensus between
individual citizens and other “actors”. In the case of the San Pedro River
Basin study, the CEC enlisted the University of Arizona’s Udall Center to
hold these public meetings. After all was said and done, there was zero
consensus among actual citizens of the area. As the book simply notes,
“Public comment was emotionally divided on the reduction of irrigated
agriculture.”164 Really? In fact, the farmers and ranchers in the area
were beyond livid, but the real purpose of the public meetings had
nothing to do with getting their voluntary consensus. Rather, the
meetings were designed to publicly abuse them until they submitted.
The Greening NAFTA authors are very blunt about this:
This experience reveals two powerful incentives at work: shame and
the desire to be virtuous while saving money or increasing pro it
margins. In a post-Holocaust world, human rights NGOs have
effectively used shame to induce compliance with universal human
rights norms. Also, voluntary pollution reduction has been achieved
when it is internally pro itable for an industry to reduce its discharges
or an industry anticipates increased regulatory or public pressure to
reduce them from the disclosure, such as through public shaming.
Shaming works well with pollution, especially toxic pollution, because
it draws on deep, perhaps irrational, fears of exposure to the risk of
serious illness and an innate abhorrence of bodily injury.165
Since when is public shame an instrument of legal disputes? What of
the farmers and ranchers in the San Pedro River Basin who refused to
be shamed into consensus during the Udall Center public hearings?
After all, they had zero input into the CEC’s study and subsequent
“recommendations”, nor were they consulted prior to the Southwest
Center for Biological Diversity’s original complaint. In actuality, they
were simply offered other incentives that they were helpless to refuse
or refute:
Two concrete incentives that have successfully induced landowner
cooperation under the U.S. Endangered Species Act are fear of a worse
regulatory outcome and immunity from liability for changed
conditions.166
In the end, the farmers and ranchers succumbed to the Re lexive Law
process when the regulatory bullies showed up with threats of what
would happen to them if they did not buckle under to the CEC’s
demands. These “actors” included the Bureau of Land Management,
manager of the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area
(SPRNCA) and the U.S. Department of the Army. Accompanying them
were several NGOs, including the Nature Conservancy and the
Southwest Center for Biological Diversity. The federal threat was “We
will bankrupt you with regulations.” The NGO threat was “We will
bankrupt you with lawsuits.”
This is “Re lexive Law”, and it is 100 percent antithetical to the
American Republic, the Rule of Law, the U.S. Constitution and the
entirety of Western civilization. Because compliance has always been
posited as voluntary, nobody has been alarmed enough to look any
further at it. However, I will point out that almost every global
imposition has been based on the voluntary aspect of Re lexive Law.
For instance, Agenda 21 depends upon voluntary compliance, which is
often referred to as “soft law” among its critics who have not perceived
the deeper meaning of Re lexive Law. Common Core education
standards were introduced as a voluntary program. Sustainable
Development in general is always proposed as a voluntary program. All
of these are based on the theory of Re lexive Law. But, once it gets its
tentacles into your personal property and local community, you will be
involuntarily squeezed until you “voluntarily” comply. There is no legal
process available to defend yourself, your property, or your rights.
There is no appeal from the damage done to your rights or property.
Another example of Re lexive Law revealing itself is seen in an article
in the New York Times, “Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of
Treaty”. The article states that “the negotiators are meeting with
diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the
world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon
pollution.”167 The self-decided social norm is that carbon pollution is
bad and that society must cut back or risk running out of resources
altogether. The problem is the Constitution which bars the President
from signing any legally binding treaty without a two-thirds vote from
the Senate. The article then offers the Re lexive Law solution:
To sidestep that requirement [two-third vote of the Senate], President
Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically
 binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting
their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from
Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world,
but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.168
Name and shame? Politically binding but not legally binding?
Knowing that the Senate would never vote on such shenanigans, the
negotiators conclude that “it may be the only realistic path.” Thus,
President Obama is delivering us into an international Re lexive Law
treaty that has no actual legal basis in fact, and that is why they think
they are justi ied in ignoring the Senate. After all, the Senate deals with
“hard law” while the White House deals with “Re lexive Law”.
Furthermore, they will use the principal “name and shame” policy tool
of Re lexive Law to smoke out the resistance for public shaming.
Subsequently, from what is now known about how Re lexive Law is
enforced in the end, those holdouts will be offered a “deal that they
cannot refuse”, namely, much worse regulatory outcomes, international
lawsuits and entanglement, trade sanctions, etc.
The NYT elaborates further:
American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement —
a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992
treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that
would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new
vote of rati ication.
Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change
policies — but would voluntarily pledge to speci ic levels of emissions
cuts and to channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to
climate change. Countries might then be legally obligated to report
their progress toward meeting those pledges at meetings held to
identify those nations that did not meet their cuts.169
There is not a single shred of doubt that anything other than
Re lexive Law is pictured here. It spits in the face of traditional Rule of
Law that our country was founded upon and operated under until 1983
when this treasonous legal system was conceived - by a German, no
less. For all intents and purposes, Re lexive Law is causing the utter
collapse of the Rule of Law as we know it.
 Don’t even begin to think this is anything less than blatant, for the
article concludes with the frank braggadocio :
“There’s some legal and political magic to this,” said Jake Schmidt, an
expert in global climate negotiations with the Natural Resources
Defense Council, an advocacy group. “They’re trying to move this as
far as possible without having to reach the 67-vote threshold” in the
Senate.170
Magic, indeed. Merriam-Webster de ines magic as “the art of
producing illusions by sleight of hand.” From a layman’s point of view,
that perfectly describes the heart and intent of Re lexive Law. One
critical legal scholar sums it up this way:
Looking at many of the recent innovations in re lexive regulation
suggests that the effects of “re lective” approach might lie in
stimulating new ways of avoiding laws rather than in enhancing
compliance with them. 171
151 Gralf-Peter Calliess, “Lex Mercatoria: A Reflexive Law Guide To An Autonomous Legal System”, German
Law Journal, 2001).
152 Ibid.
153 Slavoj Zizek, “Less Than Nothing”, (Verso, 2012), p. 467.
154 Zumbansen, “Law after the welfare state: formalism, functionalism and the ironic turn of reflexive law”,
TranState Working Papers, University of Bremen, 2009.
155 Francis Snyder, “Economic Globalisation and the Law in the 21st Century”, Blackwell Publishers, (2004).
156 Orts, “Reflexive Environmental Law”, Northwestern Law Review, (1995), p. 1264.
157 Gaines, “Reflexive Law as a Legal Paradigm For Sustainable Development”, Buffalo Environmental Law
Journal, (2002).
158 EPA Web Site (www.epa.gov).
159 Orts.
160 Markell and Knox, Greening NAFTA, (Stanford University Press, 2003), p. 2.
161 Ibid. p. 217.
162 Ibid. p. 218.
163 Ibid. p. 231.
164 Ibid. p. 228.
165 Ibid. p. 231.
166 Ibid. p. 232.
167 “Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty”, New York Times, August 26, 2014.
168 Ibid.
169 Ibid.
170 Ibid.
171 Blankenburg, “The Poverty of Evolutionism: A Critique of Teubner’s Case For ‘Reflexive Law’”, Law & Society
Review, p. 288, 1984.
 CHAPTER 8
TRANSFORMING ENERGY:
GLOBAL SMART GRID
A control
key requirement in the implementation of Technocracy is
over energy, both distribution and consumption. However,
you cannot control what you cannot monitor and measure, and this is
where Smart Grid weighs in. Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert clearly
delineated this in the irst two requirements listed in Technocracy
Study Course:

Register on a continuous 24 hour-per-day basis the total net

conversion of energy
By means of the registration of energy converted and
consumed, make possible a balanced load172

The technology required to achieve these goals did not exist in the
1930s, but it does exist today. It’s called Smart Grid.
What is Smart Grid?
Smart Grid is a broad technical term that encompasses the
generation, distribution and consumption of electrical power, with an
inclusion for gas and water as well. Smart Grid is an initiative that
seeks to completely redesign the power grid using advanced digital
technology, including the installation of new, digital meters on every
home and business.
Using wireless communication technology, these digital meters
provide around-the-clock monitoring of a consumer’s energy
consumption using continuous two-way communication between the
utility and the consumer’s property. Furthermore, meters are able to
communicate with electrical devices within the residence in order to
gather consumption data and to control certain devices directly
without consumer intervention.
According to a U.S. Department of Energy publication,
 The Department of Energy has been charged with orchestrating the
wholesale modernization of our nation’s electrical grid.... Heading this
effort is the Of ice of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. In
concert with its cutting edge research and energy policy programs, the
of ice’s newly formed, multi-agency Smart Grid Task Force is
responsible for coordinating standards development, guiding research
and development projects, and reconciling the agendas of a wide
range of stakeholders.173
The Of ice of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability was created
in 2003 under President George W. Bush and was elevated in stature in
2007 by creating the position of Assistant Secretary of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability to head it.
It is not stated who “charged” the Department of Energy to this task,
but since the Secretary of Energy answers directly to the President as a
cabinet position, it is self-evident that the directive came from the
President, whether Bush or Obama. In any case, there was no
Congressional legislation that required it, nor has there been any
Congressional oversight controlling it.
Implementation
On October 27, 2009, the Obama administration unveiled its Smart
Grid plan by awarding $3.4 billion to 100 Smart Grid projects.174
According to the Department of Energy’s irst press release, these
awards were to result in the installation of

more than 850 sensors called “Phasor Measurement Units”

to monitor the overall power grid nationwide
200,000 smart transformers
700 automated substations (about 5 percent of the nation’s
total)
1,000,000 in-home displays
345,000 load control devices in homes

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
program for the “energy manufacturing sector” as part of the $787
billion American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. Funding had already
been awarded in advance to projects in 43 states, pending Obama’s
announcement.
One such project in the northwest was headed by Battelle Memorial
Institute, covering ive states and targeting 60,000 customers. The
project was actually developed by the Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA), a federal agency under the Department of Energy. Since it is
pointedly illegal for a federal agency to apply for federal funds, BPA
passed the project off to Battelle, a non-pro it and non-governmental
organization (NGO), which was promptly awarded $178 million.
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 is evidence that the wheels of Technocracy were turning years
before the turn of the century. It is also interesting to note that
Washington state was a hotbed of Technocracy membership and
supporters in the 1930s and is currently home to the headquarters of
Technocracy, Inc.
According to Battelle’s August 27, 2009 press release,
The project will involve more than 60,000 metered customers in Idaho,
Montana, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming. Using smart grid
technologies, the project will engage system assets exceeding 112
megawatts, the equivalent of power to serve 86,000 households.
“The proposed demonstration will study smart grid bene its at
unprecedented geographic breadth across ive states, spanning the
electrical system from generation to end-use, and containing many
key functions of the future smart grid,” said Mike Davis, a Battelle vice
president, “The intended impact of this project will span well beyond
traditional utility service territory boundaries, helping to enable a
future grid that meets pressing local, regional and national needs.”175
Battelle and BPA worked closely together, and there was an obvious
blurring as to who was really in control of the project’s management
during the test period. In a “For Internal Use Only” document written in
August 2009, BPA offered talking points to its partners: “Smart Grid
technology includes everything from interactive appliances in homes
to smart meters, substation automation and sensors on transmission
lines.”
Venture capitalists who saw the coming feeding frenzy invested close
to $2 billion in 2010-2012, and the largest providers invested billions
more in increased capacity. These included global players like IBM,
Siemens, GE, Cisco, Panasonic, Kyocera, Toshiba, Mitsubishi and others.
The resulting bonanza of investment has pushed Smart Grid past the
trial stage and well into the roll-out phase. Between 2012 and 2020,
total aggregate spending on Smart Grid will likely exceed $500 billion.
The data-tracking element of Smart Grid is a second element of
concern. Annual spending on software systems and data tracking were
estimated to reach $1.1 billion in 2013 and as much as $3.8 billion by
2020. According to one analyst, “With the in lux of big data, the
potential of smart grid has shifted dramatically from the original aim of
adding a myriad of new devices toward a complete re-invention of the
way utilities do business.”176
The dynamics of hardware/software interaction dramatically
reinforces and accelerates the development cycle; the hardware
(digital smart meters) representing the data collection system has
hotly stimulated software development. In turn, the advanced software
used to aggregate and analyze the data puts even more urgency into
completing the physical infrastructure.
This acceleration dynamic between hardware and software is well
known within the world of engineering and computer science.
Engineers will push the envelope at every opportunity to improve both
hardware and software as additional functionality is seen as bene icial.
Thus, what Obama started as a seed project in 2009 has now become a
self-nourished behemoth with a life of its own.
Before we examine how the global Smart Grid is being built out, it will
be helpful to understand a new technology called “Internet of Things”
(IoT).
A Network of Things
Networks of various kinds are foundational to Technocracy, and this
is especially true of the Internet of Things. As the World Wide Web is to
people, the IoT is to appliances. This brand new technology creates a
wireless (or in some cases, wired) network between a broad range of
inanimate objects from shoes to refrigerators. This concept is “shovel
ready” for Smart Grid implementation because appliances, meters and
substations are all inanimate items that technocrats would have
communicating with each other in autonomous fashion.
IoT is not only revolutionary in concept but also is exploding in every
direction in society. It is made possible by an upgraded Internet
addressing system called IPv6 which was initially formalized in 1998.
Admittedly, it gets a little complicated to explain. All Internet traf ic is
routed from point to point based on a unique address assigned to each
point. The original Internet communication was based on an older
standard called IPv4, the capacity of which was limited to only 4.3
billion devices, e.g., computers, servers, routers and so forth. IPv4 is
still used worldwide, but you can imagine the address availability crisis
considering the many billions of computers, tablets and smart phones
all vying for their own unique identity. The IPv6 standard expands the
available address pool to 340 trillion trillion trillion, or more than we
could ever conceivably use; or could we?
IPv6 is large enough to assign a unique address to every person,
computer, and digital device known to exist, and barely break a sweat.
Giving a unique address to your digital smart meter, plus every digital
device in your home is miniscule. Every credit card, driver’s license,
RFID (Radio-Frequency IDenti ication) chip in the world could have its
own address. When Wal-Mart sells tennis shoes, every pair could be
“chipped” and uniquely addressed, and so on for all retail merchandise.
Think about industrial machines and processes: factories, machines,
software programs, algorithms, employees, ad in initum, can be
addressed.
Furthermore, every device in the world that can receive a unique
address under IPv6 can be cataloged and described. You will wonder
why this matters, but it does, and here’s why. With IPv4 and Smart Grid,
the appliances within your home or business can only be controlled by
irst accessing your external Smart Meter. Your internal appliances can
then be reached by their assigned “pseudo-addresses” that are known
only within your home. This is a semi-manual process and totally
blocks the technocrat dream of controlling everything automatically
via remote software.
However, if all of your appliances have unique and cataloged IPv6
addresses, then all washing machines, for instance, could be accessed
as a class of devices with a universal command to turn them on or off…
or limit their usage to certain times of the day. With IoT, accessing
remote resources via class, type, group, etc., is a technocrat’s nirvana.
Usage and consumption policies can then be set at the top level and
executed automatically across the entire population of a region,
country or even the entire world!
Here is a hypothetical example. The Department of Energy (DOE) is
trying to balance the load between supply and demand during the hot
month of July. It also knows that air conditioners are the primary
consumers of electricity during this period. For the last 5 years, the
DOE has been pushing energy ef icient air conditioners that use 10
percent less energy than other classes of units, and it promised to
“reward” purchasers of these new units. DOE further knows who has all
the other “dirty, power hog” units and in particular a few brands that it
really dislikes. A summertime policy decision is then made to give
everyone the same allocation of energy regardless of unit owned to
keep the baseline thermostat reading at 75 degrees. The most ef icient
units undershoot that mark and can set their thermostats to 70
degrees while meeting their allocation. The least ef icient units can
only run at 80 degrees given the same amount of energy. As the
command is issued to “make it so”, the DOE’s super computer instantly
identi ies every air conditioner in the country by its IPv6 address,
owner, manufacturer, model and install date, and simultaneously issues
a command to “speak” to each IPv6-addressed thermostat and adjust it
accordingly. Ten seconds later, every thermostat in the nation has been
“balanced”.
Well, here is how it is intended to work in the real world. In 2008 the
Paci ic Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) developed a small
circuit board called a “Grid Friendly Appliance Controller”. According to
a Department of Energy brochure,
The GFA Controller developed by Paci ic Northwest National
Laboratory is a small circuit board built into household appliances
 that reduces stress on the power grid by continually monitoring
luctuations in available power. During times of high demand,
appliances equipped with the controller automatically shut down for
a short period of time, resulting in a cumulative reduction that can
maintain stability on the grid.177
Furthermore, according to PNNL’s website,
The controller is essentially a simple computer chip that can be
installed in regular household appliances like dishwashers, clothes
washers, dryers, refrigerators, air conditioners, and water heaters.
The chip senses when there is a disruption in the grid and turns the
appliances off for a few seconds or minutes to allow the grid to
stabilize. The controllers also can be programmed to delay the restart
of the appliances. The delay allows the appliances to be turned on one
at a time rather than all at once to ease power restoration following
an outage.178
You can see how automatic actions are intended to be triggered by
direct interaction between objects, without human intervention. The
rules will be written by programmers under the direction of
technocrats who create the policies which are then downloaded to the
controllers as necessary. Thus, changes to the rules can be made on the
ly, at any time, and without the homeowner’s knowledge or
permission.
PNNL is not a private enterprise, however. It is “owned” by the U.S.
Department of Energy and operated by Battelle Memorial Institute!
All of this technology will be enabled with Wi-Fi circuitry that is
identical to the Wi-Fi-enabled network modems and routers commonly
used in homes and businesses throughout the world. Wi-Fi is a
trademark of the Wi-Fi Alliance that refers to wireless network
systems used in devices from personal computers to mobile phones,
connecting them together and/or to the Internet.
According to the Wi-Fi Alliance, “the need for Smart Grid solutions is
being driven by the emergence of distributed power generation and
management/monitoring of consumption.” In their white paper, Wi-Fi
for the Smart Grid, they list the speci ic requirements for
interoperability posted by the Department of Energy:
 Provide two-way communication among grid users, e.g.
regional market operators, utilities, service providers and
consumers
Allow power system operators to monitor their own systems as
well as neighboring systems that affect them so as to facilitate
more reliable energy distribution and delivery
Coordinate the integration into the power system of emerging
technologies such as renewable resources, demand response
resources, electricity storage facilities and electric
transportation systems
Ensure the cyber security of the grid.179

Thus, the bi-directional and real time Smart Grid communications

network will depend on Wi-Fi from end to end. While the consumer is
paci ied with the promise of lower utility costs, it is the utility company
who will enforce the policies set by the regional, national and global
regulators. Thus, if a neighboring system has a shortage of electricity,
your thermostat might automatically be turned down to compensate; if
you have exceeded your monthly daytime quota of electricity, energy-
consuming tasks like washing and drying clothes could be limited to
overnight hours.
Here is another hypothetical example of how the IoT might work.
Let’s say that all IoT devices in your utility area are happily
communicating with each other and the local controlling device. A
sophisticated program policy is in effect to limit aggregate
consumption in each home according to types of appliances, insulation
ef iciency and square footage of the home. Accordingly, the controller
device contains a baseline consumption value for each home in the
utility area. When a neighborhood home exceeds its baseline
consumption, internal devices are “taken over” to reduce your load;
this might mean changing the thermostat, limiting washers and dryers
to off-peak hours, etc.
When Smart Grid promises of lower utility costs are examined in the
real world, we ind a completely different story, namely, record high
electricity prices:
 For the irst time ever, the average price for a kilowatthour (KWH) of
electricity in the United States has broken through the 14-cent mark,
climbing to a record 14.3 cents in June.180
To add insult to injury, the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
simultaneously called for higher energy prices in order to ight climate
change.181 The consumer is obviously not in view here; talk of lower
utility costs refers to the utility companies.
Smart Grid Goes Global
A prominent business journal stated on November 16, 2009 that
“After several false starts, 2010 inally could be the year when smart
meters go global.”182 Indeed, it was:

Italy had already implemented Smart Grid technology in 85

percent of its homes nationwide.
Earth2Tech reported that Smart Grid will generate $200
billion of global investment in the next few years.
The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) has laid
out a global roadmap to insure interoperability of Smart Grid
systems among nations.
China is spending $7.32 billion to build out Smart Grid in
Asia.

Other countries with Smart Grid pilot projects that were already
launched included Germany, France, England, Russia, Japan, India,
Australia, South Africa and a host of others. Regional organizations
such as SMARTGRIDS Africa were set up to promote Smart Grid in
smaller countries. The global rush was truly underway. In every case,
Smart Grid was being accelerated by government stimulus spending,
and the global vendors were merely lining up their money buckets to
be illed up with taxpayer funds.
As is the case in the U.S., there was little, if any, preexisting or latent
demand for Smart Grid technology. Demand had been arti icially
created by the respective governments of each country. Could it have
been random chance that so many nations chose to kick-start Smart
Grid at the same time with the same kind of funding, that is, taxpayer
funded stimulus money?
One organization dedicated to the creation of a global Smart Grid
stated, “There is a new world wide web emerging right before our eyes.
It is a global energy network and, like the internet, it will change our
culture, society and how we do business. More importantly, it will alter
how we use, transform and exchange energy.”183 Statements like this
allude to the grandiose nature of a global Smart Grid: As big as the
Internet and able to transcend borders, cultures and entire societies.
With the stakes this high, the technocratic global elite went all in to
build a global infrastructure and create standards to control the energy
distribution and consumption across the entire planet.
Proponents of Smart Grid have claimed that it will empower the
consumer to better manage his or her power consumption and hence,
costs. The utility companies will therefore be more ef icient in
balancing power loads and requirements across diverse markets.
However, like carnival barkers, these Smart Grid hucksters never
revealed where or how SmartGrid came into being, nor what the
ultimate endgame might be.
The reader should again note that the reasons for the existence of the
Technocracy movement in the 1930s are the same reasons given today:
energy ef iciency, load balancing, fairness, alleviating poverty and
hunger, etc. The feigned concern for those in poverty and hunger in the
underdeveloped nations is hollow. Technocracy is pointedly amoral in
its practice: the means (their Scienti ic Method/process) justi ies the
end, whatever the end might turn out to be.
In addition to European and Asian countries and the United States,
Smart Grid is also being implemented in both Canada and Mexico, and
planners have been working on standards that will integrate all of
North America into a single, uni ied Smart Grid system. This
“continental” grid is designed to integrate with other continental
systems to create a uni ied global Smart Grid.
One leader in this planetary Smart Grid is the Global Energy Network
Institute (GENI). It has created a Dymaxion (tm) Map of the world from
the perspective of the North Pole that reveals the global grid currently
under construction. The only part of planet earth left untouched is
Antarctica. High-voltage electrical transmission links are displayed
that are capable of transferring large amounts of energy from continent
to continent to balance global supply and demand.
The GENI project has gathered momentum and is endorsed by global
leaders such as the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Sen. James
Jeffords (I-VT) and Noel Brown (North American Director, United
Nations Environmental Program), the United Nations and by the
governments of Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, and China, among
others.
According to GENI, the conceptual design for the global Smart Grid is
credited to a brilliant architect, system theorist, designer and futurist,
R. Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983). Although Fuller was not a joiner, he
was a dyed-in-the-wool technocrat:
Fuller encountered technocratic thinking through personal
relationships with leading technocrats, including Scott, Chase, and the
Committee on Technocracy member Frederick Ackerman, as well as
with their less prominent associates such as the engineers Clarence
Steinmetz and Irving Langmuir.… Fuller would later characterize
himself as “a life-long friend of Howard Scott and Stuart Chase” and
explain that although never a member of Technocracy, Inc., he was
“thoroughly familiar with its history and highly sympathetic with
many of the views of its founders.”184
In his 1982 book, Critical Path, Fuller wrote,
This world electric grid, with its omni-integrated advantage, will
deliver its electric energy anywhere, to anyone, at any one time, at one
common rate. This will make a world-around uniform costing and
pricing system for all goods and services based realistically on the
time-energy metabolic accounting system of Universe.
In this cosmically uniform, common energy-value system for all
humanity, costing will be expressed in kilowatt-hours, watt-hours and
watt-seconds of work. Kilowatt-hours will become the prime criteria
of costing the production of the complex of metabolic involvements per
each function or item. These uniform energy valuations will replace all
the world’s wildly inter-varying, opinion-gambled-upon, top-power-
system-manipulatable monetary systems. The time-energy world
 accounting system will do away with all the inequities now occurring
in regard to the arbitrarily maneuverable international shipping of
goods and top economic power structure’s banker-invented,
international balance-of-trade accountings. It will eliminate all the
tricky banking and securities-markets exploitations of all the around-
the-world-time-zone activities differences in operation today, all
unbeknownst to the at-all-times two billion humans who are
sleeping.185
If this sounds familiar, it should. It is an unvarnished re-hash of
1930s-style Technocracy, except on a global, versus continental, scale.
Electricity is delivered equally to all, and the price-based economic
system is replaced by a “time-energy world accounting system” based
on kilowatt-hours, watt-hours and watt-seconds.
There is no evidence that such a system will actually work, but that
hasn’t stopped global groups from rushing headlong into this global
initiative. Take, for instance, the World Economic Forum....
World Economic Forum and Climate Change
If a skeptic were to question the seriousness of organizations like
Terrawatts and GENI, they should consider that the elitist World
Economic Forum (WEF) has thrown its collective weight behind the
initiative and has managed to link the advancement of Smart Grid to
the reduction of carbon emissions, thus promising a tangible way to
ight global warming.
Founded in 1971, the WEF meets annually in Davos, Switzerland and
attendees are mostly the “who’s who” of the global elite. In January
2011, the WEF presented a major progress report that stated,
Accelerating Successful Smart Grid Pilots, a World Economic Forum
report developed with Accenture and industry experts, sets out the
centrality of smart grids as key enablers for a low-carbon economy
and in response to increasingly growing energy demands. Over 60
industry, policy and regulatory stakeholders were engaged in the
Accelerating Successful Smart Grid Pilots report, to identify the factors
that determine the success, or otherwise, of smart grid pilots.... There
is an opportunity to launch the next wave of development towards a
lower carbon energy system, and successful smart grid pilots will be
 a key step in this process.186 [Emphasis added]
Mark Spelman, Global Head of Strategy at Accenture, participated in
the WEF’s Smart Grid Workshop in 2010. When asked the question,
“What value can Smart Grid add in the next 30 years?” Spelman replied,
“Smart Grids are absolutely fundamental if we are going to achieve
some of our climate change objectives. Smart Grids are the glue, they
are the energy internet of the future and they are the central
component which is going to bring demand and supply together.”187
Spelman may not call himself a Technocrat, but he certainly knows his
way around the language of Technocracy.
The IEEE Standards Association
The global energy network, or Smart Grid, will operate according to
universally accepted engineering standards that make data and energy
lows compatible with each other. Who will supply such standards? The
venerable Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, or IEEE.
The IEEE claims that it is “the world’s largest professional
association dedicated to advancing technological innovation and
excellence for the bene it of humanity.” Founded in 1884, it has been
involved with electricity standards and development since Thomas
Edison invented the light bulb. Today, however, the IEEE is massively
global with 395,000 members in 160 countries, and it supports
approximately 900 active standards in various ields of engineering
and electronics. As it states on its Smart Grid website, the IEEE has
staked its claim, in clear language, on the global energy initiative:
There’s no global organization to oversee all nations’ energy systems
transformations, it is a vast movement and it’s in its infancy. With our
38 societies and seven councils IEEE is positioned to lead the smart
grid initiative. Through them and our 395,000 members, who work in
the world’s academic, government and private sectors, IEEE touches
virtually every aspect of the smart grid.
We leverage our strong foundation and inclusive collaboration to
evolve standards, share best practices, publish developments and
provide related educational offerings to further the smart grid. We are
at the forefront of advancing technology and facilitating successful
deployments throughout the world. Working hand in hand with other
 leading organizations to create one set of standards for the smart grid
is the way we can ensure success.188
IEEE’s bravado is not unwarranted. It truly is the only global
organization capable of such a monumental task. When given the
challenge to unify the global energy network, 395,000 engineers should
be enough to complete the mission! The IEEE Student Branch at
Northern Illinois University notes on their web site that the “IEEE has
managed to bring technocrats from all over the world on a single
platform.” Indeed.
The IEEE-SA (SA stands for Standards Association) is also dedicated
to bringing IoT to life: “With WIFI and other well-known standards
under their belt, the IEEE-SA is now putting their attention on the
Internet of Things (IoT) to ensure that the dream of everything
connected can come to fruition.”189
It is not clear who will oversee any or all facets of the global Smart
Grid. The implied suggestion is that it will be the same engineers and
global corporations that are currently developing it. There is no
suggestion anywhere in literature that there is a plan for a hand-off of
the resulting system to a political structure that serves the people.
The negative aspects of Smart Grid are seldom mentioned. Take
cyber-security, for instance. Picture a tech-savvy criminal who breaks
into your energy pro ile data by hacking the computers at your local
substation. Based on your power usage, he knows when you are home
and when you are not home, when you are awake and when you are
asleep, whether you have a security system turned on or off, etc. Armed
with such information, your possessions and personal safety would be
at his disposal.
In the United States, Smart Grid is escalating without any legislative
oversight or involvement; in other words, it is being implemented
exclusively by Executive Branch iat. The same is true in other
countries. There is obviously a small group of master planners or
orchestrators, most likely to be found in the bowels of elite
organizations like the World Economic Forum.
In summary, without a functioning global Smart Grid, Techno-cracy
would have no chance of succeeding because there would be no means
of controlling the distribution and consumption of energy. Conversely,
the completion and activation of Smart Grid will all but guarantee the
full and immediate implementation of Technocracy. If you have any
doubt, just remember these two speci ic requirements from
Technocracy Study Course:

Register on a continuous 24 hour-per-day basis the total net

conversion of energy.
By means of the registration of energy converted and
consumed, make possible a balanced load.190

If you are wondering why you haven’t heard more about Smart Grid in
recent years, it is because the technocratic engineers and technicians
are operating at a level far above the understanding or awareness of
politicians, the media and the general public. Whenever concerns are
raised as to motive and agenda, criticism is de lected with the “It’s
good for the consumer!” mantra. It is claimed that they are helping to
lower energy costs, giving more options to consumers and more fairly
distributing limited resources for economic progress. Perhaps
technocrats believe this themselves, but I don’t and neither should you.
Carbon Currency
Control over energy makes possible the original Technocracy goal of
implementing a carbon-based energy certi icate that would replace the
existing price-based currencies of the world. Such a currency would
also be the life blood of a “green economy” based on Sustainable
Development.
It is plainly evident today that the world is laboring under a
dysfunctional system of price-based economics as evidenced by the
rapid decline of value in paper currencies. The era of iat (irredeemable
paper currency) was introduced in 1971 when President Richard Nixon
decoupled the U.S. dollar from gold. Because the dollar-turned- iat was
the world’s primary reserve asset, all other currencies eventually
followed suit, leaving us today with a global sea of paper that is
increasingly undesired, unstable and unusable. The deathly economic
state of today’s world is a direct re lection of the sum of its sick and
dying currencies, but this could soon change.
Forces are already at work to position a new Carbon Currency as the
ultimate solution to global calls for poverty reduction, population
control, environmental control, global warming, energy allocation and
blanket distribution of economic wealth. Unfortunately for individual
people living in this new system, it will also require authoritarian and
centralized control over all aspects of life, from cradle to grave.
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
the people of the world. If not used within a period of time, the
Currency will expire (like monthly minutes on your cell phone plan) so
that the same people can receive a new allocation based on new energy
production quotas for the next period.
Because the energy supply chain is already dominated by the global
elite, setting energy production quotas will limit the amount of Carbon
Currency in circulation at any one time. It will also naturally limit
manufacturing, food production and people movement.
Local currencies could remain in play for a time, but they would
eventually wither and be fully replaced by the Carbon Currency, much
the same way that the Euro displaced individual European currencies
over a period of time. Technocracy’s keen focus on the ef icient use of
energy is likely the irst hint of a sustained ecological/environmental
movement in the United States. Technocracy Study Course stated, for
instance,
Although it (the earth) is not an isolated system the changes in the
con iguration of matter on the earth, such as the erosion of soil, the
making of mountains, the burning of coal and oil, and the mining of
metals are all typical and characteristic examples of irreversible
processes, involving in each case an increase of entropy.191
Modern emphasis on curtailing carbon fuel consumption that causes
global warming and CO2 emissions is essentially a product of early
technocratic thinking.
As scientists, Hubbert and Scott tried to explain (or justify) their
arguments in terms of physics and the law of thermodynamics which is
the study of energy conversion between heat and mechanical work.
 Again, entropy is a concept within thermodynamics that represents
the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing
mechanical work. Entropy thus increases as matter and energy in the
system degrade toward the ultimate state of inert uniformity.
In layman’s terms, entropy means once you use it, you lose it for good.
Furthermore, the end state of entropy is “inert uniformity” where
nothing takes place. Thus, if man uses up all the available energy
and/or destroys the ecology, it cannot be repeated or restored ever
again.
The technocrat’s avoidance of social entropy is to increase the
ef iciency of society by the careful allocation of available energy and
measuring of subsequent output in order to ind a state of
“equilibrium”, or balance. Hubbert’s focus on entropy is evidenced by
Technocracy, Inc.’s logo, the well-known Yin Yang symbol that depicts
balance.
To facilitate this equilibrium between man and nature, Technocracy
proposed that citizens would receive Energy Certi icates in order to
operate the economy:
Energy Certi icates are issued individually to every adult of the entire
population. The record of one’s income and its rate of expenditure is
kept by the Distribution Sequence, so that it is a simple matter at any
time for the Distribution Sequence to ascertain the state of a given
customer’s balance.... When making purchases of either goods or
services an individual surrenders the Energy Certi icates properly
identi ied and signed.
The signi icance of this, from the point of view of knowledge of what is
going on in the social system, and of social control, can best be
appreciated when one surveys the whole system in perspective. First,
one single organization is manning and operating the whole social
mechanism. The same organization not only produces but also
distributes all goods and services.
With this information clearing continuously to a central headquarters
we have a case exactly analogous to the control panel of a power
plant, or the bridge of an ocean liner.192
Two key differences between price-based money and Energy
Certi icates are that a) money is generic to the holder while Certi icates
are individually registered to each citizen and b) money persists while
Certi icates expire. The latter facet would greatly hinder, if not
altogether prevent, the accumulation of wealth and property.
Transition
At the start of WWII, Technocracy’s popularity dwindled as economic
prosperity returned; however, both the organization and its philosophy
survived.
Today, there are two principal websites representing Techno-cracy in
North America: Technocracy, Inc., located in Ferndale, Washington, is
represented at www.technocracy.org. A sister organization in
Vancouver, British Columbia is Technocracy Vancouver and can be
found at www.technocracyvan.ca.
While Technocracy’s original focus was exclusively on the North
American continent, it is now growing rapidly in Europe and other
industrialized nations. For instance, the Network of European
Technocrats (NET) was formed in 2005 as “an autonomous research
and social movement that aims to explore and develop both the theory
and design of technocracy.”193 The NET website claims to have
members around the world.
Of course, a few minor league organizations and their websites
cannot hope to create or implement a global energy policy, but it’s not
because the ideas aren’t still alive and well. A more likely in luence on
modern thinking is due to Hubbert’s Peak Oil Theory (e.g., the earth
was running out of oil) introduced in 1954. It has igured prominently
in the ecological/environmental movement. In fact, the entire global
warming movement indirectly sits on top of the Hubbert Peak Theory.
As the Canadian Association for the Club of Rome recently stated, “The
issue of peak oil impinges directly on the climate change question.”194
The Modern Proposal
Because of the connection between the environmental movement,
global warming and the Technocratic concept of Energy Certi icates,
one would expect that a Carbon Currency would be suggested from that
particular community, and in fact, this is the case. In 1995, Judith Hanna
wrote in New Scientist, Toward a Single Carbon Currency, “My proposal
is to set a global quota for fossil fuel combustion every year, and to
share it equally between all the adults in the world.”195
In 2004, the prestigious Harvard International Review (HIR)
published A New Currency and stated,
For those keen to slow global warming, the most effective actions
are in the creation of strong national carbon currencies. For
scholars and policymakers, the key task is to mine history for guides
that are more useful. Global warming is considered an environmental
issue, but its best solutions are not to be found in the canon of
environmental law. Carbon’s ubiquity in the world economy demands
that cost be a consideration in any regime to limit emissions. Indeed,
emissions trading has been anointed king because it is the most
responsive to cost. And since trading emissions for carbon is more akin
to trading currency than eliminating a pollutant, policymakers should
be looking at trade and inance with an eye to how carbon markets
should be governed. We must anticipate the policy challenges that will
arise as this bottom-up system emerges, including the governance of
seams between each of the nascent trading systems, liability rules for
bogus permits, and judicial cooperation.196 [Emphasis added]
HIR concludes that “after seven years of spinning wheels and wrong
analogies, the international regime to control carbon is headed, albeit
tentatively, down a productive path.”197
In 2006, UK Environment Secretary David Miliband spoke to the
Audit Commission Annual Lecture and latly stated,
Imagine a country where carbon becomes a new currency. We carry
bankcards that store both pounds and carbon points. When we buy
electricity, gas and fuel, we use our carbon points, as well as pounds.
To help reduce carbon emissions, the Government would set limits on
the amount of carbon that could be used.198 [Emphasis added]
In 2007, New York Times published “When Carbon Is Currency” by
Hannah Fair ield. She pointedly stated “To build a carbon market, its
originators must create a currency of carbon credits that participants
can trade.”199
PointCarbon, a leading global consultancy, is partnered with Bank of
New York Mellon to assess rapidly growing carbon markets. In 2008
they published “Towards a Common Carbon Currency: Exploring the
Prospects for Integrated Global Carbon Markets.“ This report discussed
both environmental and economic ef iciency in a similar context as
originally seen with Hubbert in 1933.
Finally, on November 9, 2009, the Telegraph (UK) presented an article:
“Everyone in Britain could be given a personal ‘carbon allowance’” that
suggested,
Implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be
the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse
gas emissions. It would involve people being issued with a unique
number which they would hand over when purchasing products that
contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and
electricity. Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out
each month to help people keep track of what they are using. If their
“carbon account” hits zero, they would have to pay to get more
credits.200
As you can see, these references are hardly minor league in terms of
either authorship or content. At the very least, the undercurrent of
early Technocratic thought has inally reached the shore where the
waves are lapping at the beach, with the potential to morph into a
riptide under the right circumstances.
Technocracy’s Energy Card Prototype
In July 1937, an article by Howard Scott in Technocracy Maga-zine
described an Energy Distribution Card in great detail. It declared that
using such an instrument as a “means of accounting is a part of
Technocracy’s proposed change in the course of how our
socioeconomic system can be organized.”201
Scott further wrote,
The certi icate will be issued directly to the individual. It is
nontransferable and nonnegotiable; therefore, it cannot be stolen, lost,
loaned, borrowed, or given away. It is noncumulative; therefore, it
cannot be saved, and it does not accrue or bear interest. It need not be
spent but loses its validity after a designated time period.202
This may have seemed like science iction in 1937, but today it is
wholly achievable. In 2010 Technocracy, Inc. offered an updated idea of
what such an Energy Distribution Card might look like. Their website
states,
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
information needed to create an energy distribution card as described
in this booklet. Since the same information would be provided in
whatever forms best suits the latest technology, however, the concept
of an “Energy Distribution Card” is what is explained here.203
The card would also serve as a universal identity card and contain a
microchip. This re lects Technocracy’s philosophy that each person in
society must be meticulously monitored and accounted for in order to
track what they consume in terms of energy and also what they
contribute to the manufacturing process.
Carbon Market Players
The modern system of carbon credits was an invention of the Kyoto
Protocol and started to gain momentum in 2002 with the
establishment of the irst domestic economy-wide trading scheme in
the U.K. After becoming international law in 2005, the trading market is
now predicted to reach $3 trillion by 2020 or earlier.
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 carbon market “is therefore all about cash and
trading” but it is also a way to a pro itable and greener future.204
Who are the “traders” who provide the open door to all this pro it?
Currently leading the pack are JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and
Morgan Stanley.
Bloomberg noted in “Carbon Capitalists” on December 4, 2009 that
The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before:
design and market derivatives contracts that will help client
companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready
to sell carbon-related inancial products to outside investors.205
At JP Morgan, the woman who originally invented Credit Default
Swaps, Blythe Masters, is now head of the department that will trade
carbon credits for the bank. Considering the sheer force of global
banking giants behind carbon trading, it’s no wonder analysts are
already predicting that the carbon market will soon dwarf all other
commodities trading.
If M. King Hubbert and other early architects of Technocracy were
alive today, they would be very pleased to see the seeds of their ideas
on energy allocation grow to bear fruit on such a large scale. In 1933,
the technology didn’t exist to implement a system of Energy
Certi icates. However, with today’s ever-advancing computer
technology, the entire world could easily be managed on a single
computer.
Of course, a currency is merely a means to an end. Whoever controls
the currency would also control the economy and the governance
system that goes with it. Technocracy and energy-based accounting are
not idle or theoretical issues. If the global elite intends for Carbon
Currency to supplant national currencies, then the world economic and
political systems will also be fundamentally changed forever.
172 Hubbert & Scott, p. 232.
173 “The Smart Grid: An Introduction”, Department of Energy publication, (2010), P. 1.
(http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oeprod/DocumentsandMedia/DOE_SG_Book_Single_Pages%281%29.pdf).
174 “Recovery Act Selections for Smart Grid Investment Grant Awards”, Department of Energy, 2010.
175 “Northwest team bids on $178 million regional smart grid demonstration project”, Battelle News Release,
August 27, 2009.
176 Leopard, “Big data apps seen driving smart grid rollout”, EE Times, December 12, 2012
(http://www.eetimes.com/design/power-management-design/4403367/-Big-data--).
177 “Department of Energy Putting Power in the Hands of Consumers Through Technology”, DOE, January 9,
2008.
178 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory website (http://www.pnl.gov/).
179 “WiFi for the Smart Grid”, WiFi Alliance, September 2010, (http://www.wi-
fi.org/sites/default/files/membersonly/wp_wifi_smart_grid_with_security_faq_20100912.pdf).
180 “Average Price Of Electricity Climbs To All-Time Record”, CNS News, July 29, 2014.
181 “IMF urges higher energy taxes to fight climate change”, Reuters, July 31, 2014.
182 “How Italy Beat the World to a Smarter Grid”, Business Week, November 16, 2009.
183 Terrawatts.com home page, 2009 (http://www.terrawatts.com).
184 Chu, “New views on R. Buckminster Fuller”, (Stanford University Press, 2009), p. 109.
185 Buckminster Fuller, Critical Path, (Saint Martin’s Griffin 1982).
186 “Energy Industry Partnership Programme”, World Economic Forum, January 2011.
187 Interview with Mark Spelman, WEF, Smart Grid Workshop, Davos, Switzerland, 2010
188 IIE Website, (http://smartgrid.ieee.org/standards).
189 “Standards: The Connective Tissue Behind the Internet of Things”, TechVibes, March 22, 2013
(http://www.techvibes.com/blog/connective-tissue-internet-of-things-2013-03-22).
190 Hubbert & Scott, p. 232.
191 Ibid., p. 49.
192 Ibid., p. 238-239.
193 See http://www.eoslife.eu/. Name changed to Earth Organization for Sustainability.
194 John H. Walsh, “The Impending Twin Crisis: One Set of Solutions?”, (Canadian Association for the Club of
Rome), p.5.
195 Judith Hanna, “Toward a single carbon currency”, New Scientist, April 29, 1995.
196 “A New Currency”, Harvard International Review, May 6, 2006.
197 Ibid.
198 “Pollute Less and You Could Cash In, Britons Told”, World Environment News, July 20, 2006.
199 Hannah Fairfield, “When Carbon Is Currency”, The New York Times, May 6, 2007.
200 “Everyone in Britain could be given a personal ‘carbon allowance’”, The Telegraph (UK), November 9, 2009.
201 Howard Scott, “An Energy Distribution Card”, Technocracy Magazine, 1937
202 Ibid.
203 “An Energy Distribution Card”, Technocracy, Inc., website, 2009.
204 Graciela Chichilnisky, “Who Needs A Carbon Market?”, Environmental Leader, January 10, 2010.
205 “Carbon Capitalists Warming to Climate Market Using Derivatives”, Bloomberg, December 4, 2009.
 CHAPTER 9
T T S S
Provide speci ic registration of the consumption of each individual,
plus a record and description of the individual.202 - Technocracy
Study Course

V irtually everyone knows that some type of spy machine in

Washington is collecting untold amounts of information on
every citizen: Emails, phone calls, credit card transactions, health
records, biometric information and so on. Most are in denial as to the
nature and scope of it.
Among the National Security Agency (NSA), Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), no stone is left unturned to
harvest all available electronic data. But, what is available? According
to documents leaked by whistle-blower Edward Snowden, the NSA’s
top-secret Project Prism has relationships with nine principal Internet
companies, including Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, PalTalk,
YouTube, Skype, AOL and Apple, to collect all email, private messaging
and other private communications.203
Such a realization lies in the face of of icial NSA propaganda. Even
two years after the initial Snowden revelations, the NSA’s of icial
website still states the following in a Q&A section on oversight:
[Q] How can I ind out if the government has records on me?
[A] Both the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act
(PA) establish procedures for individuals to seek access to government
records. The FOIA is a statute that gives anyone the right to seek
access to government records. Since NSA is authorized by law to
collect only foreign intelligence information, we would not
ordinarily expect to ind intelligence information about U.S.
persons. Although you may submit a FOIA request for intelligence
records, because our intelligence activities are classi ied, we generally
are unable to acknowledge whether or not we hold intelligence
 information on individuals.204 [Emphasis added]
Thus, even if the NSA is breaking the law (which it is) by collecting
mountains of data on U.S. Citizens (which they are), don’t expect to
ever ind out about your records because they are classi ied and
therefore none of your business. On the surface of it, it may seem that
the NSA has “gone rogue” and has taken on a life form of its own. We
will soon discover that nothing could be further from the truth.
An earlier whistle-blower, retired AT&T technician Mark Klein,
revealed that the NSA had installed a secret “listening room” at a major
trunk facility owned by AT&T in San Francisco. Every phone call
passing through the call center was secretly siphoned off by the NSA for
storage and analysis.205 The NSA was slapped hard by public outcries
and even Congressional inquiry, but it did nothing to stop the phone
call collection program; in fact, within two years, major AT&T trunk
facilities in other cities had been set up and the collection expanded. By
2013, it was revealed that Verizon had also become part of the spy
network. According to The Guardian (UK),
The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone
records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America’s largest
telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April….
The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian,
requires Verizon on an “ongoing, daily basis” to give the NSA
information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US
and between the US and other countries.206
There were lawsuits iled by citizen groups against the outrageous
betrayal by commercial entities like AT&T, Verizon and Microsoft, but
they were futile because in 2008, Congress retroactively amended the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to read,
Release from liability.—No cause of action shall lie in any court
against any electronic communication service provider for providing
any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with [an
order/request/directive issued by the Attorney General or the Director
of National Intelligence.]207
Case closed. The door was thrown wide-open for a complete co-
opting of all communication and Internet companies by the Executive
Branch of the U.S. Government. Do you have Verizon or AT&T? Every
phone call is being recorded. Do you have a Gmail or AOL account?
Every email is being recorded. Do you use Facebook, LinkedIn or
Twitter? Every post is recorded. And, needless to say, it is all tied to
your master ile, providing for a convenient warrantless search at any
time in the future.
All of this data is being siphoned off and stored in massive data
centers, recently constructed, to prepare for the next phase of the
operation which will focus on analysis. Fortunately for us, it is
estimated that only one percent of all collected data is currently being
analyzed, and the reason for this is that data storage technology has
raced ahead of raw computer processing power and the algorithms
necessary for analyses. This imbalance will not last for long since
massive projects are already underway to create super-computers that
will be able to process huge amounts of data within seconds. In
addition, brand new computing technologies are being developed, such
as quantum computing, that will increase existing computing power by
a factor of several thousand times. To reiterate, the collection of data is
already a fait accompli, but the analysis of the data is still ahead. To a
technocrat, what the data says in a nominal way is a trivial issue.
Rather, the elements of control come into focus only when he learns
what the data means and what it can predict about the future. Such
knowledge will be a product of analysis and not collection.
Enter Big Data
When computer engineers talk about “big data”, it engenders a mental
disconnect with most people. What is big data? And what would anyone
want to do with it?
The simplest concept of big data refers to any database that is too
large for traditional data management tools to be used for storage,
retrieval, correlation and analysis. The question is, what is too large to
be “big”.
When the original Apple Macintosh computer was unveiled in 1984, it
contained a 3 1/2 inch loppy disk that could hold 400,000 bytes of
information, or 400K. The “K” denotes Kilobytes, or thousands of
bytes, and a single byte was enough to express one letter in the English
alphabet. In 1986, the world eagerly received the next Macintosh
version that expanded storage to 800K. At about the same time, the PC
industry introduced the 1,440K loppy disk that then became the
standard of portable disks for several years thereafter. The colloquial
term used to describe this latter disk was 1.44MB, where the MB means
Megabytes.
When IBM came out with the irst 5MB hard drive, there was real
excitement. Programmers were ecstatic because they now had room to
work with some “real data”.
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 about Gigabytes. A hard drive with 5GB of storage simply meant
5,000MB. The starting size for new personal computers today is around
the 500GB range, even for most laptop computers. So you may be
thinking how could life get any better and what would you need any
more storage for anyway?
We are getting closer to big data, but not close enough. Because of a
need to store commercial video iles, I recently purchased a whopping
4,000GB disk drive that was billed in terms of Terabytes as a 4TB
monster. If it were not for storing large video and graphics iles, I have
no idea how I would use that much space! Whereas the original 400K
loppy could store the equivalent of a 100 page book, just three of my
4TB drives could store the entire contents of the Library of Congress.
Needless to say, Terabytes means serious business when it comes to
massive data storage, but we have barely touched the realm of “big
data”.
To summarize and extend this progression of thinking,
Size Term
1,000 Bytes Kilobyte (KB)
1,000 Kilobytes Megabyte (MB)
1,000 Megabytes Gigabyte (GB)
1,000 Gigabytes Terabyte (TB)
1,000 Terabytes Petabyte (PB)
 1,000 Petabytes Exabyte (EB)
1,000 Exabytes Zettabyte (ZB)
1,000 Zettabytes Yottabyte (YB)
Consider what you can do at the Petabyte level:

One Petabyte can store the DNA of every man, woman and
child in the United States, three times over.
The human brain can store about 2.5 Petabytes of data.
One Petabyte of MP3-encoded music would take 2,000 years
to play.
A one Petabyte ile could contain a 3 Megabyte pro ile of
every person in America.

When we get to the Zettabyte level, it is almost inconceivable. A study

was conducted in 2012 showing that the digital content of the entire
world was 2.8 Zettabytes and that it would double that size about every
30 months. Now this is big data! One Zettabyte is represented by the
number 10 with 21 zeros after it. It represents one billion Terabytes or
one trillion Gigabytes. Let’s not even think about Yottabytes.
As of 2011, no organization in the world was able to house even one
Zettabyte of data. However, by fall of 2013, the National Security
Agency (NSA) inished its new $1.5 billion spy center in Utah that alone
has a reported capacity of 5 Zettabytes or almost twice the size of all
digital data in the world. Now you can see why the NSA vacuums up all
the data in sight: Because it can.
The NSA’s Utah data center has had a lot of criticism, none of which
has slowed its progress in the slightest. However, note that Reuters
reported in 2013 a vital connection to an even higher intelligence
operation:
The NSA is the executive agent for the Of ice of the Director of
National Intelligence, and will be the lead agency at the facility, but
the center will also help other agencies, including the Department of
Homeland Security, in protecting national security networks,
according to a NSA news release.208 [Emphasis added]
Here we see two key points. First, the Utah facility doesn’t belong to
the NSA at all! Instead, it really belongs to the Of ice of the Director of
National Intelligence (ODNI) with the NSA being only the “lead agency”
at the facility. Second, we see that the NSA is only an agency of the ODNI
and reports directly to it. In other words, the ODNI is where marching
orders, funding and oversight come from. It is therefore worthwhile to
examine the ODNI more closely.
Of ice of the Director of National Intelligence
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(IRTPA) provided sweeping reform to the U.S. Intelligence community.
With the experience of 9/11 still fresh in mind and a seemingly
impotent intelligence apparatus, Congress passed the 235-page IRTPA
with overwhelming support from both Democrats and Republicans.
However, IRTPA opened the loodgate for the unbridled collection of
data in order to build a national repository of information on virtually
every person in the United States.
Title I, Subtitle A of IRTPA was labeled Establishment of Director of
National Intelligence and was created for the “reorganization and
improvement of management of the intelligence community.” The
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) was to be appointed by the
President with advice and consent from the Senate. The appointee
answered directly to the President but was not a member of the
President’s Cabinet. Authority was granted to serve as the undisputed
head of the intelligence community with direct responsibility over all
16 intelligence agencies scattered throughout government; notably,
this included the CIA, FBI and Homeland Security. The DNI’s authority
was sweeping:
The Director of National Intelligence shall have access to all national
intelligence and intelligence related to the national security which is
collected by any Federal department, agency, or other entity,
except as otherwise provided by law or, as appropriate, under
guidelines agreed upon by the Attorney General and the Director of
National Intelligence.209 [Emphasis added]
Further, the intelligence gathered and made possible by the DNI was
to be irst provided to the President, then to heads of departments and
agencies of the executive branch, then to the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and senior military commanders, and inally to the
Senate and House of Representatives.
The czar-like status of the DNI is underscored by the fact that he is
responsible for not only overall intelligence strategy but also
operational management, funding and allocation of programs in all
sub-agencies. The IRTPA further stated that “The Director of National
Intelligence shall -
(A) establish uniform security standards and procedures;
(B) establish common information technology standards,
protocols, and interfaces;
(C) ensure development of information technology systems that
include multi-level security and intelligence integration capabilities;
(D) establish policies and procedures to resolve con licts between the
need to share intelligence information and the need to protect
intelligence sources and methods;
(E) develop an enterprise architecture for the intelligence
community and ensure that elements of the intelligence
community comply with such architecture; and
(F) have procurement approval authority over all enterprise
architecture-related information technology items funded in the
National Intelligence Program.210 [Emphasis added]
The earlier statement that the “NSA is the executive agent for the
Of ice of the Director of National Intelligence” now makes perfect
sense. In short, the head of the NSA answers directly to the Director of
National Intelligence and receives from him direction and strategy,
funding and oversight. Who ordered and approved the $1.5 billion
budget for the NSA’s massive ive Zettabyte data center in Utah? The
Director. Who ordered and approved the data center’s operational
objectives and policies? The Director. Who ordered and approved
massive spying operations involving AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft,
Facebook, Apple, Skype, etc.? The Director. Who ordered and created
the overall strategy of building a national database with all this data in
the irst place? The Director.
So, who was the irst Director that initially created, staffed, funded
and organized the original Of ice of the Director of National
Intelligence in 2005? It was none other than Trilateral Commission
member John Negroponte, appointed by then-President George W.
Bush. Bush was never a member of the Trilateral Commission, but his
father, George H.W. Bush was. Most notably, Bush’s Vice-President,
Dick Cheney, was also a member.
Negroponte held his DNI position from April 21, 2005 through
February 13, 2007, or almost two years. Bush then appointed Vice
Admiral John McConnell who held on until January 27, 2009, or eight
days into the irst Obama administration when he was sacked. Obama
obviously wanted to have his “own guy” as DNI but who did he
appoint? You might already have guessed it was yet another member of
the Trilateral Commission, Admiral Dennis C. Blair!
It would be stating the obvious that Technocracy and the Trilateral
Commission are always seen above the two-party continuum, neither
Republican or Democrat. With equal aplomb, their members
surrounded Obama just as easily as they did Bush. As far as the
technocratic intelligence community was concerned, a change in
political leadership meant nothing in terms of pushing forward with
their pre-conceived Total Surveillance Society; one might rightly
wonder who is in control of whom. In fact, measuring and monitoring is
the life-blood of Technocracy, remembering that the ifth requirement
as noted earlier is to “Provide speci ic registration of the consumption
of each individual, plus a record and description of the individual.” The
current total surveillance mentality is a hand-in-glove it!
Americans were warned of the dangers of such technology being used
against the American people. In 1975, Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho)
clearly and pointedly stated,
The chairman of the Senate panel probing U.S. Intelligence agencies
says the government has the technological capacity to impose
“total tyranny” if a dictator ever came to power. “There would be no
place to hide,” Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho), chairman of the
committee, said Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press. Church said the
eavesdropping technology given the government by intelligence
agencies would enable the government to impose total tyranny “and
there would be no way to ight back because the most careful
 effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no
matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the
government to know, such is the capability of this technology.”211
[Emphasis added]
In 1961, outgoing President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in his
farewell speech,
…in holding scienti ic research and discovery in respect, as we should,
we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public
policy could itself become the captive of a scienti ic-technological
elite.212
In 1975 and 1961, nobody had any idea of what Church or
Eisenhower were talking about. In 2014, however, the fruit of a
“scienti ic-technological elite” is all too evident and all too
encompassing. If Hitler could have somehow grabbed hold of today’s
surveillance technology back in 1935, the whole world would be
speaking German today, and all of his perceived enemies would have
been summarily destroyed.
Data Fusion and Fusion Centers
Most of the data collection network established by the DNI operates
on a national and international scale. For instance, collecting phone
calls, email and messaging records only requires a small number of
entry points, such as phone companies and email services. Since email
records are virtually identical across all email providers, there is no
data inconsistency in vacuuming everything up and putting it into a
common database. The same applies for phone calls, banking records
and consumer transactional data.
At the state level where volumes of critical data are found, such
standardization is seldom seen. Most state data systems were “home
grown” and hence, different from state to state. To further exacerbate
the problem, communities within each state built their own local
systems that had little in common with a neighboring city or county.
Over the years, a myriad of software companies offered different
lavors of database software, some radically different than others.
Programmers have used different techniques to de ine and describe
the same data from project to project. In short, you cannot just throw
all of this data into a melting pot and expect anything other than
meaningless garbage to come out the other end.
This is where the concept of “data fusion” is applied, where different
databases are compared so that a) connectors can be built to bridge
the differences and b) missing pieces of data in one database can be
fabricated in another. In fact, creating missing data elements out of thin
air, based on implications from other pieces of data, is a key concept in
the “fusion” process.
The Federal intelligence juggernaut saw it to go after all of this state-
level data and thus created the concept of Fusion Centers that would
survey, map, collect and coordinate the transmission of local
information to the national level. Each state in America has at least one
local Fusion Center. In fact, according to the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) website, there were 78 Fusion Centers operating in the
United States as of January 2014.
Former DHS head Janet Napolitano described Fusion Centers in
testimony before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on
Homeland Security in 2012:
These centers analyze information and identify trends to share timely
intelligence with federal, state, and local law enforcement including
DHS, which then further shares this information with other members
of the Intelligence Community. In turn, DHS provides relevant and
appropriate threat information from the Intelligence Community back
to the fusion centers. Today, there are 72 state- and locally-run fusion
centers in operation across the nation, up from a handful in 2006. Our
goal is to make every one of these fusion centers a center of analytic
excellence that provides useful, actionable information about threats
to law enforcement and irst responders.213
However, Napolitano’s rhetoric did not hold up to scrutiny for long.
On October 3, 2012, the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations released its scathing report, Federal Support For And
Involvement In State And Local Fusion Centers. Judicial Watch
summarized this 141-page report as follows:
Nine years and more than $300 million later, the national [fusion]
centers have failed to provide any valuable information, according to
 investigators. Instead they have forwarded “intelligence of uneven
quality – oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering
citizens’ civil liberties and Privacy Act protections, occasionally taken
from already-published public sources, and more often than not
unrelated to terrorism.” A review of more than a year of fusion center
reports nationwide determined that they were irrelevant, useless or
inappropriate. None uncovered any terrorist threats nor did they
contribute to the disruption of an active terrorist plot, the report says.
In fact, DHS of icials acknowledged that the information produced by
the fusion centers was “predominantly useless”. One branch chief
actually said, “a bunch of crap is coming through.”214
This writer suggests that the criteria for judging the DHS’s Fusion
Centers may have been wrong. Instead of using Napolitano’s baseline,
perhaps they should have paid closer attention to this 2006
Department of Justice document:
Fusion centers will allow information from all sources to be readily
gathered, analyzed, and exchanged, based upon the predicate, by
providing access to a variety of disparate databases that are
maintained and controlled by appropriate local, state, tribal, and
federal representatives at the fusion center.215 [Emphasis added]
Thus, the true role of Fusion Centers is to simply “fuse” data from
disparate databases at the local and state level and feed the result to
the national level. No publicly available studies using this criteria have
been found that measure the value of the Fusion Center network to
Federal agencies like the NSA. Perhaps actions speak louder than
words: The Fusion Center program is still fully funded and six more
Fusion Centers have been added since Napolitano’s testimony!
Conclusion
Any engineer knows that you cannot control what you cannot
monitor. Thus, Technocracy requires an all-encompassing data
collection and intelligence function in order to monitor and control all
elements of society and economic activity. To a technocrat, there is no
such thing as “too much data”. When collecting becomes an end in
itself, participants quickly display symptoms of classical hoarding
disorder as described by Mayo Clinic:
 A persistent dif iculty discarding or parting with possessions because
of a perceived need to save them. A person with hoarding disorder
experiences distress at the thought of getting rid of the items.
Excessive accumulation of items, regardless of actual value, occurs.
Such is the state of today’s Total Surveillance Society, created to serve
Technocracy only, while excluding any bene it for individuals, groups or
even society at large. While this may seem completely irrational to you,
it is perfectly rational to a technocrat.
It is also noteworthy that the guardians of the technocrat chickens
are technocrat foxes themselves, and together they have successfully
removed themselves from any effective oversight or control by
Congress, state or local of icials, all of which have been completely
ineffective at reigning in their data vacuum juggernaut.
202 Hubbert & Scott, 1934, p. 225.
203 “NSA slides explain PRISM”, The Washington Post, June 6, 2013.
204 (http://www.nsa.gov/about/faqs/oversight.shtml).
205 “The NSA Wiretapping Story That Nobody Wanted”, PC World, July 17, 2009.
206 “NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily”, The Guardian (UK), June 5, 2003.
207 “FISA Amendments Act of 2008” – Section 702, subsection h, paragraph 3; Section 703, subsection e,
(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6304enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6304enr.pdf).
208 “U.S. agency denies data center to monitor citizens’ emails”, Reuters, April 15, 2013.
209 IRTPA, Sec. 102A, p. 7.
210 Ibid., p.13.
211 “Dictator Could Impose Total Tyranny in U.S., Church Says”, The Times-News, August 16, 1975.
212 Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation, January 17, 1961.
213 Testimony of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano Before the United States House of Representatives
Committee on Homeland Security, “Understanding the Homeland Threat Landscape - Considerations for the
112th Congress”.
214 “DHS Covers Up Failures of U.S. Counterterrorism Centers”, Judicial Watch, Oct. 3, 2012.
215 “Fusion Center Guidelines”, Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security, August 2006.
 CHAPTER 10
T H

T he master strategy of Technocracy and its goal of global

transformation has already been detailed in the chapters
Transforming Economics, Transforming Government and
Transforming Religion. But, there is one last consideration: What about
the people of the world themselves? Are they suited to live in a
Technocracy without further changing the very fabric of life itself? Or,
perhaps is it just the elite technocrats who need to be changed? This
brings us to an important discussion on Transhumans, Posthumans
and Transhumanism, without which this book would simply be
inadequate. One prominent leader in the movement de ines
transhumanism as
…a commitment to overcoming human limits in all their forms
including extending lifespan, augmenting intelligence, perpetually
increasing knowledge, achieving complete control over our
personalities and identities and gaining the ability to leave the planet.
Transhumanists seek to achieve these goals through reason, science
and technology.215
Another puts it this way:
Philosophies of life that seek the continuation and acceleration of the
evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and
human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-
promoting principles and values.216
A Transhuman is a person who believes in transhumanism, and views
himself as “in transition” toward becoming posthuman, a state which
no one has actually achieved as yet; according to the following
de inition, you can see why:
“Posthuman” is a term used by transhumanists to refer to what
humans could become if we succeed in using technology to remove the
limitations of the human condition. No one can be certain exactly
what posthumans would be like but we can understand the term by
 contrasting it with “human”: Posthumans would be those who have
overcome the biological, neurological, and psychological constraints
built into humans by the evolutionary process. Posthumans would
have a far greater ability to recon igure and sculpt their physical form
and function; they would have an expanded range of re ined
emotional responses, and would possess intellectual and perceptual
abilities enhanced beyond the purely human range. Posthumans
would not be subject to biological aging or degeneration.217
You might be thinking that somebody has been watching too many
science iction movies lately, but you would be wrong. Transhumans
are deadly serious about becoming posthuman by using advanced
technology (e.g., NBIC) that is now well under development at major
universities and research centers throughout the world, and there is
just enough substance to court a loyal and growing following of would-
be posthumans. Since all of this is squarely based on Scientism
(discussed in Chapter 1), it is thus directly related to Technocracy and
must be explored in some detail. Again, the question is, do technocratic
strategists intend for their newly-transformed world to be populated
with humans or posthumans?
Julian Huxley (1887-1975), brother of the utopian science iction
writer Aldous Huxley (Brave New World, 1932), was the irst person to
use the word Transhumanism in his 1957 book New Bottles For New
Wine:
It is as if man had been suddenly appointed managing director of the
biggest business of all, the business of evolution —appointed without
being asked if he wanted it, and without proper warning and
preparation. What is more, he can’t refuse the job. Whether he wants
to or not, whether he is conscious of what he is doing or not, he is in
point of fact determining the future direction of evolution on this
earth. That is his inescapable destiny, and the sooner he realizes it
and starts believing in it, the better for all concerned.
The human species can, if it wishes, transcend itself —not just
sporadically, an individual here in one way, an individual there in
another way, but in its entirety, as humanity. We need a name for this
new belief. Perhaps transhumanism will serve: man remaining
 man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and
for his human nature.
“I believe in transhumanism”: once there are enough people who can
truly say that, the human species will be on the threshold of a new
kind of existence, as different from ours as ours is from that of Peking
man. It will at last be consciously ful illing its real destiny. 218
[Emphasis added]
Huxley was a professing humanist, having signed the original
Humanist Manifesto in 1933 and served as the irst president of the
British Humanist Association upon its founding in 1963. In 1962,
Huxley received the “Humanist of the Year” award from the American
Humanist Association. He was deeply committed to Darwin’s theories
of evolution and eugenics as an evolutionary biologist by education
and profession. He became the irst Director-General of the United
Nations Educational, Scienti ic and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in
1946 and was president of the British Eugenics Society from 1959-
1962. He was also a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund in
1961. In short, Huxley lived a life totally immersed in Sustainable
Development before the term even existed. However, as a visionary he
saw beyond the valley of transformation to the mountain peaks afar off,
where the ultimate goal of man might be realized: Taking direct control
of evolution in order to launch mankind to a “new kind of existence”,
one achieved by “transcending himself”, and thus inally ful illing his
“real destiny”. Could it be that Huxley had a glimpse of the Human
Genome Project to map the human genome in the 1990s? Or thoughts
about Ray Kurzweil’s prediction of Singularity in the 21st century?
Whether he did or did not, Huxley is considered to be an important
“founding father” of modern transhumanism by Transhumanists
themselves.
Although there are many Transhumanist organizations around the
world all espousing very consistent philosophical and religious views,
there is none more representative and authoritative than Humanity
Plus, or H+, led by Max More and his wife, Natasha Vita-More, who
authored the Transhuman Manifesto in 1983. Max co-founded the
original Transhumanist magazine Extropy in 1988 and the Extropy
Institute in the early 1990s. The irst point of their Transhumanist
Declaration states,
Humanity stands to be profoundly affected by science and technology
in the future. We envision the possibility of broadening human
potential by overcoming aging, cognitive shortcomings,
involuntary suffering, and our con inement to planet Earth.219
[Emphasis added]
Essentially, the Transhuman envisions that ultimately he will be able
to recreate himself as a “superman” with unlimited intelligence and
information at his disposal (on-demand omniscience), to escape his
human form to travel the universe in electronic form (multi-presence if
not omnipresence), to modify physical creation to suit his personal
taste (omnipotence) and to escape physical death (immortality).
The fact that these are God-like qualities is not lost on would-be
posthumans. On October 1, 2010, a conference titled Transhumanism
and Spirituality was hosted by the University of Utah in Salt Lake City
where Transhuman movement leaders from around the world
convened to discuss the “evolutionary transition to divinity through
technology…”, that is, man becoming God. Attendees represented a mix
of Mormonism, Buddhism, Atheism and Christianity. Although
Hinduism wasn’t of icially represented, the concept was evident.220
Transhumanism has a wide appeal to many different religions around
the world, especially those that espouse a road to becoming gods;
transhumanism simply offers a way to achieve it - through technology
developed by leading scientists and engineers in the world’s top
universities. Indeed, the language of divinity, or men becoming gods, is
seen throughout the scienti ic community as well. If there is any reason
why you have never heard about this, it is because scientists and
engineers avoid publicity, and the media does not perceive a story
anyway.
To restate: Whereas Humanism relied on a metaphysical fantasy to
achieve its goals, Transhumanism forti ies its metaphysical wish-list
with supposedly objective science. Never mind that much, if not most,
of that objective science hasn’t been invented yet. To the Transhuman
psyche, just the mere promise of future science is enough for them to
count it as a fait accompli.
Converging Technologies
In June 2002, the National Science Foundation published a major 482-
page report called, Converging Technologies for Improving Human
Performance. It called for the integration of four branches of physical
science for the sole purpose of enhancing the human condition.
Speci ically, the converging disciplines are Nanotechnology,
Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science, and they
have given rise to the acronym NBIC. In common use among its
advocates, the word “Convergence” is often used as a noun.
Why these four particular areas of study? Let’s brie ly explore each
one.
First, Nanotechnology has recently discovered how to manipulate the
building blocks of matter at the atomic and molecular level. A
nanometer is one billionth of a meter and is comparable to the size of a
marble verses the size of Earth. Nanotechnology is already producing a
number of sub-disciplines in the ields of medicine (drugs, diagnostics)
and engineering (alloys, chemicals), for instance. The key to
Nanotechnology in the Convergence, however, is in the ongoing and on-
demand manipulation of matter through external means, such as
through the use of computer technology.
Second, Biotechnology is concerned with the study of life and living
organisms. Cells are the building blocks of all life, but scientists believe
they have cracked the code to life by successfully mapping the human
genome, or DNA, starting in 1990, and mostly completed in 2003. DNA
is the essential building block of all life forms. Scientists subsequently
noted how similar the DNA structure is to the principles and logic
found in computer information technology.
Third, Computer Information Technology (CIT) is the most well known
of these four technologies. Personal computers, smart phones, smart
appliances and even automobiles have embedded micro-chips that
control processes, collect and process data, enable communications,
and so on. Applied computer science is absolutely necessary to design,
build and control DNA sequences and nano-sized atomic and molecular
material. Increasingly fast computer chips are now able to make split-
second calculations that would have been completely impossible even
50 years ago. Thus, this CIT is enabling lightening-speed development
and application of the other technologies.
Finally, Cognitive Science deals with the human mind, including
psychology, arti icial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, learning
sciences, linguistics, anthropology, sociology and education.221 The
reader should note that this intersection of hard science with sociology
(the study of human society) is reminiscent of the same phenomenon
in the 1930s when sociology was crossed with science to produce
Technocracy. At his 2013 State of the Union Address, President Obama
alluded to Convergence when he stated,
Every dollar we invested to map the human genome returned $140 to
our economy.... Today, our scientists are mapping the human brain.…
Now is the time to reach a level of research and development not seen
since the height of the Space Race.222
Thereafter, the White House quickly published the Fact Sheet: BRAIN
Initiative, which elaborated,
The BRAIN Initiative will accelerate the development and application
of new technologies that will enable researchers to produce dynamic
pictures of the brain that show how individual brain cells and complex
neural circuits interact at the speed of thought. These technologies
will open new doors to explore how the brain records, processes, uses,
stores, and retrieves vast quantities of information, and shed light on
the complex links between brain function and behavior.223
[Emphasis added]
The BRAIN Initiative was immediately kick started with a one
hundred million dollar Federal grant with the promise of billions more
in future years as the project unfolds. The National Institutes of Health
is leading the project, and the high-level working group in charge will
be co-chaired by Dr. Cornelia Bargmann, a professor of neuroscience at
Rockefeller University in New York City which was originally founded
by John D. Rockefeller, Sr. in 1901 as the Rockefeller Institute for
Medical Research.
Since there was no public demand for a project to map the human
brain, nor would any career politician have a clue about the
complexities or outcomes of such a project, one must conclude that
some outside group put Obama up to it. Such a group could rightly
claim incredible in luence to be able to get a sitting president to
announce and fund a scienti ic project such as this which only
underscores my earlier claim that the scientists and engineers who
aspire to a posthuman future for themselves are an incredibly powerful
group and that they are dead serious about achieving their goals,
especially if it is at taxpayer expense.
With the building blocks of matter and life at their disposal, coupled
with advanced computer technology to help arrange them,
technologists believe that they are on the fast-track to creating the
inal “quantum leap” where man takes direct control over evolution
and launches mankind into a posthuman world. It is important to note
that without the university framework, most of which is publicly
funded, Convergence would generally be a moot issue and would
remain in the fantasy world of science iction writers. If government
programs did not exist and private industry were left to develop
technology for products designed to improve the human condition, it
undoubtedly would do so, but it would be based on public demand and
bene it rather than on spiritual, metaphysical and cult-like
philosophies of scientists and engineers found within universities.
Singularity
The other key element of Transhuman hope is the futurist notion of
scienti ic Singularity. Largely theorized and popularized by inventor
and futurist Ray Kurzweil, the Singularity predicts a point in time (circa
2042) when computer intelligence will inally exceed that of humans,
resulting in an unpredictable world where machines become
autonomous, maintaining themselves and creating new technologies
and new machine designs without human intervention. Discovery of
new knowledge turns vertical on the chart, far outstripping human
ability to keep up with it, much less direct it.
Singularity is often explained in relation to Moore’s Law, named after
Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore, who described the advancing trend
in technology in his 1965 paper, Cramming more components onto
integrated circuits.224 Moore’s Law states that the number of transistors
on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. This
has generally held true over the intervening years, and other elements
of computer science have generally kept pace with Moore’s Law as well,
such as complexity in software engineering, speed in computer
communications, etc. Using this logic to extrapolate technological
advances in arti icial intelligence has led Kurzweil and others to make
such bold predictions.
In his 2005 book, The Singularity is Near, Kurzweil also reveals how
biological evolution has extended through technological evolution and
attaches a distinct spiritual connotation to the mix by stating,
The Singularity denotes an event that will take place in the material
world, the inevitable next step in the evolutionary process that started
with biological evolution and has extended through human-directed
technological evolution. However, it is precisely in the world of matter
and energy that we encounter transcendence, a principal
connotation of what people refer to as spirituality.225 [Emphasis
added]
It is important to point out that Kurzweil’s vision of the future is an
unproven theory, however plausible he can make it sound, and there is
no hard evidence that he could be right. However, his strong and
unwavering belief in his own theory has led him to seek to resurrect his
beloved father back to life through a computer avatar. As to the rest of
the currently living, he forecasts,
The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our
biological bodies and brains. We will gain power over our fates. Our
mortality will be in our own hands. We will be able to live as long as we
want. We will fully understand human thinking and will vastly extend
and expand its reach. By the end of this century, the nonbiological
portion of our intelligence will be trillions of trillions of times more
powerful than unaided human intelligence.226 [Emphasis added]
When you take a little hard science produced by the Convergence and
add to it a plausible but unproven theory of the Singularity, you have
the modern equivalent of Darwin’s primordial soup that produced the
irst edition of humanity. Whereas Darwin’s theory of evolution was
based on random chance, technological evolution will explicitly take
control of the development of posthuman man, leading him to
eventually become “gods of the universe” with incredible god-like
powers.
That is a strong statement, but it is backed up by direct testimony. For
instance, Dr. Richard Seed, a leading Transhuman, cloning researcher
and nuclear physicist, was interviewed for a documentary on
Transhumanism and rather angrily stated,
We are going to become Gods. Period. If you don’t like it, get off. You
don’t have to contribute, you don’t have to participate. But if you’re
going to interfere with ME becoming God, then we’ll have big trouble;
we’ll have warfare. The only way to prevent me is to kill me. And you
kill me, I’ll kill you.227
Since this book is about Technocracy and not Transhumanism, this
brief discussion will have to suf ice. The reader can ponder the
question of how Posthumans and Technocracy will get along. But, since
we see the multiple threads of Evolution, Humanism and Scientism
through both, it is not unreasonable to suggest that one was made for
the other and vice versa. Another reason to suggest this as a necessity
is that today’s humans may endorse Technocracy for a time, but in the
end, as they see the nature of scienti ic dictatorship, they will reject it
and attempt to throw it off society’s back. In other words, the utopian
promises of modern Technocracy may be appealing to the masses, but
not that appealing. Adding the Transhuman carrot of becoming gods in
the process will simply seal the deal by thoroughly deceiving man into
thinking that the promises of Utopia actually exist and that they must
patiently endure the inconveniences of Technocracy in order to realize
them.
215 Attributed to Natasha Vita-More,
216 Attributed to Max More
217 Transhumanist FAQ, (http://www.extropy.org).
218 Julian Huxley, New Bottles for New Wine, (Peters Fraser & Dunlop, 1957), p.17.
219 Transhumanist Declaration, (http://humanityplus.org/philosophy/transhumanist-declaration/).
220 Eyewitness testimony from Christian researcher and apologist, Carl Teichrib who was allowed to attend the
conference as an observer. (see www.ForcingChange.com)
221 Paul Thagard, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), “Cognitive Science”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall
2008 Edition).
222 Barack Obama, “State of the Union Address”, (2013) (http://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2013).
223 Fact Sheet: BRAIN Initiative, April 2, 2013, (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/04/02/fact-
sheet-brain-initiative).
224 Gordon E. More, “Cramming more components onto integrated circuits”, Electronics Magazine, (1965), pp. 4.
225 Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, (Viking Press, 2005), p. 387.
226 Ibid., p. 9.
227 Dr. Richard Seed, Technocalyps Part II - Preparing for the Singularity, 2006.
 CHAPTER 11
T A

W 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 of violence or illegal behavior toward any person,
especially toward fellow American citizens. For those critics who will
undoubtedly think it legitimate to lift a quote out of context, I warn you
in advance that this paragraph states my clear intention: No guns. No
knives. No blunt instruments. No bodily harm of any kind.
This may seem harsh to some, but Americans need to face the hard
facts of reality. We ind ourselves in our current situation because our
enemies have had a clearly superior strategy from the start while we -
the people - have had no coherent strategy at all. We have lost battle
after battle and are almost to the point of losing the war altogether. We
can work this dilemma backward by calling on General Sun Tzu (circa
500BC), the noted Chinese military strategist and philosopher. Tzu
wrote The Art of War, a simple book that has been used by military
strategists ever since, including those from the United States. Chapter
Three states, in part,
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result
of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every
victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the
enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.228
By this analysis, the fact that we have “succumbed in every battle”
(and yes, there are a few exceptions) is because we don’t know the
enemy and we don’t know ourselves. So, who is the enemy? According
to Tzu’s philosophy, our enemies have succeeded in keeping all eyes off
of them by encouraging useless in ighting among our own citizens.
Conservatives see liberals as the enemy. Liberals see conservatives as
the enemy. Libertarians see big government as the enemy. However, if
you have picked up even one thing from reading this book, it should be
that Technocracy has completely transcended political parties or
philosophies. Trilateral Commission members have used and
manipulated both sides of the political spectrum to get what they want
while avoiding detection and hence, any effective resistance. Upon the
election of Jimmy Carter in 1976, it can be accurately said that
Trilateral Commission Technocrats literally hijacked the Executive
Branch of the U.S. Government, and they have dominated every
administration since then, up to and including that of Barack Hussein
Obama. As we have progressed down this path, America has become
more and more divided, contentious and many would even say,
dysfunctional. And why not? When you know you are being attacked
and things are falling apart, but you do not know who the enemy is, you
strike out at any convenient target. This is the exact opposite of how
Americans acted when Pearl Harbor was attacked at the start of our
involvement in World War II because everybody knew who our
enemies were and thus focused all of their attention on destroying
them. Think what would happen today if Americans suddenly
recognized who their true enemies were?
The next question is, “Who are we?” First off, most citizens of our
nation are thoroughly deceived about the nature of our problems and
how they have been perpetrated. Just the suggestion of this will
undoubtedly trigger narrow-minded responses like “If only people
knew about FEMA camps” or “We can’t change our country unless we
get rid of the Federal Reserve” or “The president must be impeached.”
Over the years, I have heard more arguments than can possibly be
remembered, and they have all missed the mark. For all the effort put
into these misguided pursuits, how much better off are we for it today?
Our present condition speaks for itself: The nation is circling the drain
because we have missed the mark. It is we who have been deceived by a
crafty enemy who knew exactly what they were doing. This must stop.
Once we accept the fact that the problems we face are due to speci ic
people pushing Technocracy on us, we will start to destroy this
delusion. Who are these people? Again, the global leaders are members
of the Trilateral Commission and their elitist cronies; the foot soldiers
are the myriads of unelected and unaccountable technocrats at all
levels of government and the corporate world who are speci ically
uninterested in politics unless it furthers their cause.
The second complaint about who we are is a failure to recognize that
Congress has been neutered as far as controlling Technocracy and
Trilateral hegemony is concerned. When I say “neutered”, I mean
impotent and ineffective. We have spent the last 40 years ighting to
send good Representatives and Senators to Washington to steer our
nation out of harm’s way. Have they succeeded? No. However, like
addicted gamblers who do not know when to stop putting coins in the
machine, they double-down hoping to get their lost money back.
Americans need to face the fact that the national political scene is
largely a waste of valuable time and money and get beyond it.
Dismal as the above may seem, Americans need to just calm down,
embrace tested and tried strategies to set things right, and then
execute those strategies that will win battle after battle. They don’t
have to be “big” battles, either. If there were a thousand wins on even a
small scale, it would have a huge impact on our nation as a whole.
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/Sustainable Development crowd. You take on the formidable task of
rallying the citizens of the community to vote the General Plan down
and at the same time, call out the city council members who supported
it, the city manager who signed the consulting contracts, and all the
planners who “wrote it up”. Running your General Plan out of town will
not make national news, but if enough towns did the same thing across
the country, they would collectively send a huge message up the chain
of technocrat command that they are being exposed and are at risk of
being thrown out of their positions as well.
The citizens of our country are in no position to stop the National
Security Agency from spying on them, as unconstitutional or illegal as
that may be. We are in no position to rout the corruption out of the
Internal Revenue Service and to stop it from being used as a political
weapon against citizens. We are in no position to stop the Executive
Branch from obstinately refusing to enforce existing immigration laws
and close the border to illegal immigrants. While these truly are all
critical issues, the real problem is that we simply have no power to
overcome them at this time.
We need to listen a little harder to Sun Tzu to get some “street
smarts” about developing strategies that lead to wins:
To ight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence;
supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance
without ighting.

Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy’s

plans;
the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy’s
forces;
the next in order is to attack the enemy’s army in the ield;
and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.
The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be
avoided.229 [Emphasis added]

This is such a package of strategic wisdom. First, we are not in a

street brawl where we just run into any ight and start throwing
punches. The best thing is to break the enemy’s will and resistance
without a ight at all! Yes, that is possible. In order of importance, the
best outcome is to scuttle the enemy’s plans outright before a battle is
even engaged; the worst scenario is laying siege to a walled city, that is,
to an enemy who is already heavily entrenched and forti ied by various
layers of insulation and bureaucracy. The second-best outcome is to
block the meet-up of various enemy forces coming to a battle from
different directions, as is the case when environmental groups
conspire with NGOs and local planning committees to force some
policy down our throats.
On a national level, most top technocrats are de initely hardened by
political battles where they have learned to repel or dodge resistance.
On a local level, most Technocrats have never experienced any
resistance from anyone, and hence, they are weak. Experience shows
that they are utterly dismayed when someone suggests their ideas are
stupid, shortsighted, unconstitutional, illegal or whatever. After all, they
have been educated by a government school system that brainwashed
them into thinking that their beliefs are shared by everyone in society.
When confronted, especially in a public forum, they are often caught
like the proverbial deer in the headlights, wide-eyed and clueless.
This is not to say that local technocrats are necessarily easy to
dislodge from your community. After all, they are already there, and
they are deeply invested in the work that they are doing. They will not
just walk away from it all because you say so. On the other hand, they
are virtually defenseless when their arguments and philosophies are
confronted with hard facts and/or legal action.
The next most important element is to engage the enemy where you
ind him and do not engage those whom you do not know or cannot
ind. This might seem obvious, but it is often missed by most well-
intentioned activists. The most overused and meaningless words in
society are “them” and “they”. When the enemy isn’t identi ied, people
simply use the impersonal substitution: “We must ight them.” “They
cannot get away with this.” This has to stop: You simply cannot ight an
unknown or unidenti ied enemy. To gain intelligence on the enemy, you
must expend effort doing legwork and research. Attend public
meetings, talk to local of icials, research voting records, read planning
documents, request access to city and county contracts, etc. In most
communities, it will not take long to determine the who, what, when,
where, why and how of your local situation. The point is, if you haven’t
done your homework to get this kind of information, you will be
wasting your time shadow boxing with the hypothetical “them”, always
swinging and never landing a punch.
How can you identify a locally oriented Technocrat? If you can match
up two or three characteristics from this list, you may have discovered
a technocrat:

Promotes pseudo-scienti ic ideas such as global

warming/climate change or Sustainable Development
Creates or enforces regulations or policies that are not
subject to legislative, judicial or public approval
Promotes or works with NGOs, environmental groups or any
 agency of the United Nations
Promotes economic development or policies based on Smart
Growth, urban renewal or Public-Private Partnerships
Any elected or appointed of icial who is active in a Regional
Governance program such as a Councils of Governments
organization
Unwilling to listen or shuts down any opposing positions or
discussion

This is not meant to be exhaustive nor to send you on a witch hunt. If

you have read and understood the rest of this book, you should be able
to understand the technocrat mindset. You can be sure that most
technocrats will not recognize themselves as such, and many may not
even know what the word means. On the other hand, don’t let
innocence deceive you. Nice people can be misguided just as easily as
anyone else. Accordingly, some people will easily recant their positions
when exposed to the truth via gentle explanation or exhortation.
Always look for people who are willing to seriously listen to you and
who are willing to change if the motivation to do so is correct.
Technocrats will resist your efforts in one of two ways: overtly or
passively. By overt resistance, I mean they will actively give you an
argument as to why you are wrong and they are right. They might
appear as ideologues instead of public servants, and they are always
easy to identify. By passive resistance, I mean that they will appear to
agree with you just to get you out of their face and will then proceed to
do what they had already decided to do in the irst place. The latter is
more dif icult to deal with than the former because precious time is
wasted while you watch what they do in spite of what they have said.
Furthermore, the passive resister is more dif icult to pin down because
he will pull the same trick on you (and others) over and over again,
agreeing with you in word but doing just the opposite in action.
Since elected and unelected of icials come from your own community,
it is important to educate everyone about Technocracy and everything
that it implies. It is obviously easier to groom a public servant before
he or she is elevated to a position where policies are created and
enforced. The most important reason for you to work on all local
elections - city council, planning committees, school boards, ire
district boards, etc. - is to get people into the system who can then rise
to higher levels as time goes on. In the meantime, insiders are in a
better position to in luence their peers than you are, and if not, they
can at least tell you where the logjams exist so that you can assist them
in putting pressure in the right places.
How to Get a Technocrat Fired
First and foremost, let me point out that every local activist group
must have good legal council. This is not optional. If you don’t have
access to a like-minded lawyer, recruit one to your cause. The law is not
always clear and logical like you might think it should be. Further,
people knowingly or unknowingly act outside of the law and need to be
corrected with what the law actually says.
An elected of icial who acts in a way contrary to the best interests of
those who are represented can certainly be threatened by political
backlash and by being voted out of of ice. If the next election is far off,
you must take other actions if you want to stop his or her behavior
from doing more damage to your community. Isolation is one strategy:
Persuade those immediately around the of icial to change their
opinions and actions, requiring the of icial to work against his or her
own peers. Enlisting of icial legal council is another strategy: Make
your own case with your legal representative and then take it to the
city or county attorney for action. In all cases, always seek to work with
your local newspapers, radio and TV stations to publicize your case.
The odds may be that they will not give you the time of day, but you set
up a critical accountability to be used later by giving them the facts to
report today.
Let’s assume for a minute that you have worked the above strategy,
hoping to get some particular result. Even though you are convinced,
after talking with your own legal council, that laws are being or have
been violated, you have hit the proverbial brick wall. The very next
concept you need to become familiar with is misprision.
Misprision is a legal term that generally means failure of a public
of icial to notify certain other of icials when a criminal law has been
broken. The of icial who should do this reporting is not a party to the
crime but had clear knowledge that it was being or had been
committed and took steps to conceal the crime. Both knowledge and
concealment are necessary to prove misprision. When you have
delivered clear proof of a felony crime to an duly elected or appointed
of icial, and they make an conscious decision to ignore it, then they are
taking action to conceal it. There are two types of misprisions that are
relevant here: Misprision of Treason and Misprision of Felony.
According to one law dictionary, Misprision of Felony occurs when
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony
cognizable by a court of the U.S., conceals and does not as soon as
possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil
or military authority under the U.S. 18 USC Misprision of felony, is the
like concealment of felony, without giving any degree of maintenance
to the felon for if any aid be given him, the party becomes an accessory
after the fact.230
Misprision of Treason is de ined as
the concealment of treason, by being merely passive for if any
assistance be given, to the traitor, it makes the party a principal, as
there are no accessories in treason.231
Understanding misprision requires very speci ic charges as to the
felony or treason being committed. Has the Constitution, federal, state
or local law been violated? Have you properly informed your local
of icials of these speci ic violations? Have they refused to act by
reporting to appropriate authorities? If the answer is “Yes”, then you
can deliver an appropriate Misprision of Felony or Misprision of
Treason to each of icial, putting them on of icial notice for future action
against them. In the case of Misprision of Treason, the potential penalty
would get anyone’s attention: “Such person or persons, on conviction,
shall be adjudged guilty of misprision of treason, and shall be
imprisoned not exceeding seven years, and ined not exceeding one
thousand dollars.”232
To be clear, there have been no recent convictions anywhere in the
U.S. on Misprision of Treason or Misprision of Felony, but the laws are
nonetheless still valid and theoretically enforceable. Furthermore,
there is no statute of limitation for misprision charges, so a notice
delivered today may have legal consequences for the recipient years
down the road.
Someone might be thinking, “I tried to explain the facts to my of icial,
but they would not listen.” In this case, deliver the facts to the public
record in your community. This could mean delivering a clearly written
explanation to the city or county recorder’s of ice, or put into the
of icial logs of your local city council’s meeting. In addition, you could
publish your explanation in a local newspaper, much like public notices
of bankruptcies, deaths, legal actions, etc.
Let’s not forget the unelected of icials who are probably more directly
responsible for crafting unconstitutional or illegal policies and
regulations. Find out who they are, educate them as best as you can,
and then serve them with the same notice of misprision. While they
may wholeheartedly disagree with your positions, the mere fact that
you have “called them out” will give them pause for their future
behavior. As more successes are recorded throughout the nation, those
who have been served with Misprision notices will indeed begin to
sweat, even to the point of changing their mind, actions and
allegiances.
Success Stories Are Building
Common Core State Standards were developed with private money
(foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) and owned by
a private organization (The National Governor’s Association). Common
Core prepares students for an Agenda 21- and Sustainable
Development-dominated future. The standards have been widely
adopted in most states, thanks to efforts by the National Governor’s
Association and certain NGOs. However, the resistance has been
growing. Much to their own credit though, Indiana, Missouri, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Oklahoma have already passed legislation
to ban Common Core curriculum from their state. Ohio may soon
become the ifth, and its legislation also intends to block any school
from adopting other education standards that have been created by
any entity outside of the state. In Louisiana, the governor executed an
executive order requiring the state to develop its own education
standards. There are anti-Common Core activists in all 50 states who
are intent on reversing the tide in their local school systems. It is no
small feat to get an entire state house and senate to craft such
legislation, and it is certainly a clear warning to those who think only a
few “narrow-minded” and otherwise ignorant citizens oppose
Common Core.
The international sponsor of Agenda 21, Local Governments for
Sustainability or ICLEI, formerly had over 600 cities as dues-paying
members that agreed to adopt its policies. Resistance against ICLEI
became so ierce that it removed its membership list from its website.
From January 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 - just 18 short months -
138 cities were forced by their own citizens to sever relations with
ICLEI altogether. Many more have followed since then.
Lawsuits against Agenda 21 are springing up. In the San Francisco
area two prominent local organizations, Freedom Advocates and the
Post Sustainability Institute, launched a lawsuit against an Agenda 21-
inspired Plan Bay Area created and imposed by the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG). ABAG is a member of the California
Association of Councils of Government (CALCOG) and part of the larger
unconstitutional network of regional government organizations. The
Amended Complaint Brief of the lawsuit states, in part,
The [Post Sustainability] Institute has a bene icial interest in ensuring
that public funds are not unlawfully wasted on statutes, plans,
agreements, or programs that are in violation of rights held under the
United States or California Constitutions. The Institute has also
brought this action on behalf of the public interest; to vindicate the
public’s interest in land-use planning that is coherent and consistent
with the California and United States Constitutions.233
Examples such as these should be an encouragement that some
battles are being fought and won. In all cases of wins throughout the
nation, you will see very professional and thorough activism that
produced results. Someone might argue that these wins were only
incidental and that they didn’t see the whole picture correctly. Perhaps
so. But, if incidental battles can be won by partially knowing
themselves and/or the enemy, think what is possible from a cadre of
Americans who know both in depth!
Indeed, all hope is not lost, but it is quickly fading. Americans have
had ample opportunity over the last 40 years to stop the global
transformation of America and have failed to do so. The two
compelling reasons for this are that 1) they didn’t know or understand
their enemies and 2) they didn’t know themselves. Hopefully, this
chapter will completely remove both misconceptions.
228 Sun Tzu, The Art of War, circa 500BC.
229 Tzu, S., The Art of War, Dover Publications, 2002.
230 Misprision, The ‘Lectric Law Library Lexicon.
231 Ibid.
232 The Crimes Act of 1790 (or the Federal Criminal Code of 1790), formally titled An Act for the Punishment of
Certain Crimes Against the United States.
233 Amended Complaint Brief, Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County, Case # RG13699215,
March 6, 2014.
 CHAPTER 12
C

M y hope is that this book has helped you to connect the dots in
a world that is accelerating out of control. In fact, the problems
we face as a society are not at all unrelated but rather are orchestrated
by a very small global elite who wants to transform our society and the
world into a utopian system called Technocracy. Further, every pillar of
society is being radically transformed at the same time, each in
synchrony with the other. The religious notions of Humanism and
Scientism run throughout, pushing the world to become the irst truly
global and godless religion in history.
The irst nation in history that attempted a full implementation of
Technocracy was Nazi Germany during the reign of Adolf Hitler, and
that ended very poorly with the mass genocide of millions of people.
The technocrats who ran Hitler’s war machine were glad to have a
“host” where they could apply their amazing technology and know-
how, but who Hitler was or what he did was of no concern to them. We
learned from this that technocrats can thrive under any political
system but that their presence will transform that system if they are
left unchecked.
The second implementation of Technocracy was in China which was
indeed a Communist nation until members of the Trilateral
Commission got ahold of it. Remember that it was Henry Kissinger
under Richard Nixon and Zbigniew Brzezinski under Jimmy Carter
who normalized relations with Communist China and threw open the
doors for Western multinational corporations to pursue massive
economic development opportunities.233 And so they did. Whether the
Chinese knew it or not at the time, they were completely absorbed into
the Trilateral vision of a “New International Economic Order”, or
Technocracy. Of the corporations who originally set up business there
in the early days, almost all had at least one member of the Trilateral
Commission on their board of directors, and some had several.
 By 2001, just twenty years later, Time Magazine (itself tightly
connected to the Trilateral Commission) documented the
transformation in a byline titled “Made in China: The Revenge of the
Nerds”. It was a misleading title, but the story itself was spot on:
The nerds are running the show in today’s China. In the twenty years
since Deng Xiaoping’s [1978-79] reforms kicked in, the composition of
the Chinese leadership has shifted markedly in favor of
technocrats. ...It’s no exaggeration to describe the current regime as
a technocracy.
After the Maoist madness abated and Deng Xiaoping inaugurated the
opening and reforms that began in late 1978, scienti ic and
technical intellectuals were among the irst to be rehabilitated.
Realizing that they were the key to the Four Modernizations embraced
by the reformers, concerted efforts were made to bring the “experts”
back into the fold.
During the 1980s, technocracy as a concept was much talked about,
especially in the context of so-called “Neo-Authoritarianism” -- the
principle at the heart of the “Asian Developmental Model” that
South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan had pursued with apparent
success. The basic beliefs and assumptions of the technocrats
were laid out quite plainly: Social and economic problems were
akin to engineering problems and could be understood,
addressed, and eventually solved as such.
The open hostility to religion that Beijing exhibits at times -- most
notably in its obsessive drive to stamp out the “evil cult” of Falun Gong
-- has pre-Marxist roots. Scientism underlies the post-Mao
technocracy, and it is the orthodoxy against which heresies are
measured.234 [Emphasis added]
If you have absorbed what you have already read in this book, you
will never see China in the same light again. Most observers, however,
still look at China as a Communist Dictatorship, but only because it
continues to be authoritarian and repressive. Time Magazine simply
tells us that this is just Neo-Authoritarianism, Technocracy-style. It
looks the same on the surface as citizens continue to be oppressed, but
the nature of the manipulation goes much deeper than it ever did
before.
Then there is the Technocracy operating in the European Union. The
co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, David Rockefeller, proudly
stated in 1998,
Back in the early Seventies, the hope for a more united EUROPE was
already full-blown - thanks in many ways to the individual energies
previously spent by so many of the Trilateral Commission’s earliest
members.235
This early in luence apparently never abated because it was Trilateral
Commissioner Vallery d’Estaing who authored the EU’s Constitution
in 2002-2003 when he was President of the Convention on the Future
of Europe. Then in 2011, when Europe was hit by economic chaos and
Greece and Italy were on the verge of total collapse, the European
Commission summarily ired the elected prime minsters of both
nations and appointed their replacements: Mario Monti was installed
as prime minister in Italy and Lukas Papademos assumed the same
title in Greece. To reiterate - they were appointed by the unelected and
unaccountable European Union. Both were members of the Trilateral
Commission and in the European press, most importantly, they were
both widely hailed as “Technocrats”. Slate Magazine immediately
published a headline story titled “What’s a Technocrat?” and proceeded
to answer its own question:
Both men have been described as “technocrats” in major newspapers.
What, exactly, is a technocrat?…An expert, not a politician.
Technocrats make decisions based on specialized information rather
than public opinion… The word technocrat can also refer to an
advocate of a form of government in which experts preside.… in the
United States, technocracy was most popular in the early years of the
Great Depression. Inspired in part by the ideas of economist Thorstein
Veblen, the movement was led by engineer Howard Scott, who
proposed radical utopian ideas and solutions to the economic disaster
in scienti ic language. His movement, founded in 1932, drew national
interest.236
Slate nailed it and put in the proper context of historic Techno-cracy.
So, we need to just get past the luff and call the European Union what it
is: A Technocracy! In this case, they installed two technocrat dictators
over formerly proud democratic states. It is ironic that Western
civilization was founded upon principles developed in these two
countries, and yet they were the irst two to succumb to outright
dictatorship at the hands of neo-authoritarian technocrats.
How close is America to capitulating to Technocracy? Calls for it are
already appearing if you know what to look for. For instance, U.S. News
& World Report magazine waited until March 2012 to declare that
“America Needs Leaders Like Greece’s Papademos or Italy’s Monti.” The
author elaborated,
What Papademos offered Greece and what Monti offered Italy was a
chance for all parties, left, right, and center, to come together under
technocratic and nonpolitical leadership to solve economic problems
that threatened to spin out of control and damage democracy itself.237
What the author fails to understand is that a dictatorship is mutually
exclusive to a democracy. As to “nonpolitical leadership”, we already
see Technocracy operating within virtually every Federal agency and
within every local community that is implementing Sustainable
Development and Agenda 21 policies. It’s just that nobody recognizes it
for what it is, even though it is all around us. Worse, the noose is
tightening rapidly.
Given the state of affairs in China and the European Union, should
anyone be surprised that America would not be next on the list?
Converting those nations to Technocracy took quite a bit of time, a lot
of deception and persuasion to go along. It would require a different
strategy and a different tactical plan. Richard Gardner, a professor at
Columbia University and an original member of the Trilateral
Commission, spelled this out in a 1974 paper published in the Council
on Foreign Relations publication Foreign Affairs:
In short, the “house of world order” would have to be built from the
bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great
‘booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous
description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty,
eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-
fashioned frontal assault.238
 Does today’s world seem like a “booming, buzzing confusion” to you?
Has our nation been picked apart piece by piece, effectively destroying
national sovereignty in the process? Of course, the answer is
emphatically Yes! The only reason it has taken longer to bring the U.S.
to its knees is because the technocrats irst needed to get through the
sticky problems of “Rule of Law” and our concept of “unalienable
rights” that so strongly de ine our Republic. There is no other nation in
the world based squarely on these two principles. Furthermore, the
technocrats needed to overturn America’s Judeo-Christian ethical and
moral base that said No! to relative truth, Evolution, Humanism and
Scientism. Technocrats faced no such dif iculties on other continents.
China was already a godless dictatorship, and so only a single person
needed to be convinced to go along. In Europe, the Judeo-Christian
ethic and system of moral absolutes had already died several decades
ago making the technocrat conquest an easy sport. Other countries
with neither have fallen prey with zero resistance, like sheep being led
to the slaughter. Indeed, America has posed a special obstacle for
Technocracy in the past. The American people rejected it in the 1930s
even as Nazi Germany eagerly embraced it at the same time. The
“frontal attack” that did not work was replaced with an “end run
around national sovereignty” that has been very effective without
causing any alarm along the way - until perhaps now.
Critics are certain to argue the point that these nations are not
transforming into Technocracies. I can only ask, “To what degree of
transformation would it take for you to change your mind?” Today’s
issue is not necessarily that we have “arrived” but rather that we are
“on the way” and may arrive sooner than anyone can imagine. Let me
explain.
When studying the progression of Nazi Germany leading up to
Hitler’s assumption of complete power, I have often theorized that
there was very likely a speci ic point in time when he realized that he
had all the political, military, organizational and economic power
necessary to declare himself dictator. Hitler had declared his intentions
in his 1925 book, Mein Kampf, which was mostly ignored at the time
because Hitler was viewed as a trouble-making rabble-rouser who 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
on implementing that strategy. In 1933, after he clawed and connived
his way into power, he pulled the plug and declared himself dictator;
there was nothing anyone could do about it. To oppose him meant
certain death or imprisonment. His work and strategy, like moving the
pieces on a chessboard, had resulted in a doomsday checkmate. My
point is that it didn’t happen by accident or a even by a series of
random events where one day he just woke up and thought, “I think I
will announce my dictatorship after lunch today.” Rather, Hitler was
certainly gathering pieces of his empire all along, analyzing and
plotting his victory with excruciating detail. As the necessary assets
were lined up in a row under his control, Hitler knew exactly what it
would take to get to the top, and he knew that he would know when he
had arrived. Well, that day arrived, and history was changed forever.
Based on this thinking, if today’s technocrats are meticulously
working toward a scienti ic dictatorship and applying a speci ic
strategy to get there, wouldn’t you think that they have a speci ic list of
criteria that must be met before “game over” can be called? Wouldn’t
you think that they are comparing such a list to the actual progress
they are making in the world? Wouldn’t you think that they are
monitoring their progress and will recognize when the list has been
ful illed? If you can see my point here, then there are only two
questions left: When that day comes, will the Technocrats have the guts
to shut the old world order down and simply declare the “system” as
dictator? If so, how long will it take them to act?
There have been science- iction books written about Technocracy,
the most famous of which is Brave New World (1932) by Aldous Huxley.
Huxley pointedly concluded that Technocracy produces scienti ic
dictatorship, not controlled by a single person, but by a system based
on Scienti ic Method and designed to manipulate and micro-manage
every human being in every detail of his life. The system itself became
a god that was worshipped, and questioning any decision or outcome
was tantamount to blasphemy. George Orwell inished Nineteen Eighty
Four in 1949 and popularized the word Orwellian in the process. Both
books were looking into the face of Technocracy. Orwell’s theme,
technocratic control, is not unlike what we face today:
In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully
on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept
the most lagrant violations of reality, because they never fully
grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not
suf iciently interested in public events to notice what was happening.
By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed
everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left
no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through
the body of a bird.239
Some don’t have the ability or capacity to understand, and we bear
them no harm. Some refuse to understand. Some think they understand
and don’t care if they are ignorant. Only a few will admit that they don’t
understand and seek to do something about it. This book was written
for you, and I encourage you to climb up to a higher peak to see the big
picture instead of the various small fragments. The future belongs to
us, and we alone must take responsibility for what we pass on to our
children and grandchildren. If we choose to ignore and do nothing
about Technocracy and its perpetrators, it is most certain that it will
sweep over the entire world like a giant tsunami, pressing all of
mankind into a scienti ic dictatorship that is devoid of any human
capacity for things like compassion, mercy, justice, freedom and liberty.
Americans rejected Technocracy in the 1930s, and if we choose to, we
can reject it today as well. Philosopher and statesman Edmund Burke
(1729-1797) warned and reproved us from the past that “The people
never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”240 This book has
stripped away some of the delusion that has allowed the destruction of
so many things that we hold most dear, so perhaps we will ind ways to
stop the destruction of liberty, and soon. If not us, then who? If not now,
then when?
233 Patrick M. Wood, “Technocracy and the Making of China”, August Forecast & Review, May 22, 2013.
234 Made In China: Revenge Of The Nerds, Time Magazine, June, 2001
235 David Rockefeller, “In the Beginning; The Trilateral Commission at 25”, Trilateral Commission, 1998, p.11.
236 “What’s a Technocrat”, Slate, November 11, 2011.
237 “America Needs Leaders Like Greece’s Papademos or Italy’s Monti”, U.S. News & World Report, March 2,
2012.
238 Richard Gardner, “The Hard Road to World Order”, Foreign Affairs, 1974, p. 558.
 g p
239 George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four, (Signet Classic, 1950), Ch. 5.
240 “Edmund Burke.” BrainyQuote.com. Xplore Inc., 2014. 8 September 2014.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/edmundburk108344.html
 APPENDIX I
TRANSFORMING CHRISTIANITY

T he implications of Scientism, Technocracy

Transhumanism for the Christian church are, in this writer’s
and

opinion, quite profound. Two areas in particular are worth discussing.

The irst is the subject of Bible prophecy which has generally fallen out
of favor with many Christian churches. The second is the repurposing
of the Church to serve earthly and globalist ends rather than the God
who saves in the irst place. The worldly philosophy of
Communitarianism, closely coupled to the philosophy of Technocracy,
is the primary instrument that is bringing about this transformation.
The Rise and Fall of Bible Prophecy
When Hal Lindsey and Carole Carlson irst published The Late, Great
Planet Earth in 1970, interest in Bible prophecy skyrocketed. Over the
next 20 years, their book sold no fewer than 28 million copies to make
it the best-selling book in history, second only to the Bible itself.
The Late, Great Planet Earth was the irst modern book that related
speci ic Bible prophecies to current events. The Bible’s books of Daniel,
Isaiah, Ezekiel and Revelation played prominently, and events like the
re-founding of Israel in 1948, the congealing of the European Economic
Community, famines and earthquakes all appeared to be easily
identi ied building blocks of the foretold “end times” and the visible
return of Christ to the earth. In fact, Lindsey’s and Carlson’s arguments
were so compelling that it led them to the conclusion that “the decade
of the 1980s could very well be the last decade of history as we know
it”, and it ignited the spiritual inquiry of an entire generation of
Christians around the world. The thought that Christ could come for
His Church at any time was exhilarating.
Looking back over the last 45 years since the book irst appeared,
there are two key observations. First, Christ did not come during the
1980s, and many Christians were ultimately left in a dismayed
condition thinking perhaps that somehow God had failed or let them
down. Second, Christians were left with a ixation on current events as
the “proof” that the end was near, and thus they continue to view
today’s events based on Lindsey’s model of political structures and
societal phenomenon. This has proved frustrating for many students of
Bible prophecy even if it has not caused them to abandon their faith.
Taking a fresh look at the prophetical landscape and with this spotty
past as a backdrop, one might conclude that people are simply looking
in the wrong places today. The resulting frustration and waning
interest in Prophecy has created a vacuum in the church that has been
illed by globalization dogma along the lines already discussed in this
book.
Where are some “better” places to look for prophetical relevance?
Take, for instance, the topic of technology and a common language. The
“Days of Noah” as mentioned in the New Testament are most often
associated with the pre- lood condition of the world and rightly so
because it was a period of great wickedness on the earth. However,
Noah also lived for 350 years after the lood which should rightfully be
included in the phrase “Days of Noah”. Noah brought his three sons
through the lood, with their wives, and they began to repopulate the
earth. One of his sons, Ham, fathered a son named Cush who in turn
sired a son named Nimrod:
He began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter
before the Lord wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter
before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and
Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. (Genesis 10:8-10)
The Bible doesn’t record much about Nimrod, but it does note that
the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, where the infamous Tower of
Babel was constructed in rebellion against God.
The Old Testament account of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 irst
states, “And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.”
As they strategized on how to build a tower all the way to Heaven, they
discovered a new technique for building tall structures. Whereas rocks
and mud had been used previously, now uniformly ired bricks and tar
would prove far superior. Simplistic as this sounds, it was a new
technology to them, and one so exciting that they were deceived into
thinking they could actually build that tower right into Heaven. But,
why build it to Heaven itself? The implications are that they intended
to invade Heaven and bring God down to earth, which of course, was
abject rebellion against God.
Before the tower was completed, however, God intervened to break
up the rebellion by “confusing” their language, causing them to scatter
to the four corners of the then-known world. My only point here is to
point out the connection between technology and a common language
that apparently enabled their rebellion.
Today we have a direct parallel that is almost universally
unrecognized because it is not necessarily an event but rather the
development of a process. Another reason is that there is very little
public awareness of science in general. Today’s new NBIC technology
largely being directed by advocates of Transhumanism is represented
by the convergence of Nanotechnology, Bio-technology, Information
Technology and Cognitive Science. The Transhuman dream is no less
than to escape the laws of sin and death and to assume qualities
reserved for God, such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence,
eternality, etc. Thus, the NBIC technology promises to deliver their
dream of ultimate rebellion against God. And the language used to
construct this modern-day Tower of Babel? It’s not English, German,
Latin or Esperanto. Rather, it is digital. The human genome is
compared to a master computer with four building blocks that are
digital in nature. The manipulation of matter at the atomic and
molecular level is controlled by digital computers. The mind is likened
to a computer with billions of transistors that emulate a digital
computer. If you were to assemble a group of scientists from around
the world to discuss NBIC, you would ind uneven ground with spoken
languages, but you would ind perfect luency with this new digital
language.
Thus, this is the new common language spoken by those who would
build a modern Tower of Babel (i.e., Transhumanism) to displace God in
the same manner as the account in Genesis 11. The clear implication of
Prophecy for today is that God will not deal with this current rebellion
until the world enters the future 7-year period known as the
Tribulation as described in the book of Revelation. The irst rebellion
ended in humanity being scattered throughout the world which was
certainly inconvenient but not necessarily deadly. The second rebellion
will end with all-consuming judgment.
Another unrecognized aspect of global Technocracy is that this is the
irst comprehensive system for global control that the world has ever
seen. While Prophecy students have mostly examined political
structures for clues to the future reign of antichrist, it is no wonder that
they have been frustrated. There is a never-ending parade of changes
in political alliances and structures. To think that the disparate political
structures in the world will be merged into a single, functioning
political system by themselves is simply futile. On the other hand,
Technocracy promises to replace the nation-states of the world in one
clean sweep. Indeed, if there is any kingdom being prepared by
antichrist for the ful illment of end-times events, it is one based on
Scientism, Technocracy and Transhumanism - providing systematic
and comprehensive control over every human being on earth without
regard to geographic boundaries.
In this writer’s opinion, topics like these should give rise to renewed
interest in Bible prophecy, but unfortunately, the opposite has
occurred. Instead, many prominent pastors and Christian leaders have
abandoned the study of Prophecy altogether. Brian McLaren, a
prominent leader in the emerging church movement concludes:
The book of Revelation is an example of popular literary genre of
ancient Judaism, known today as Jewish apocalyptic. Trying to read it
without understanding its genre would be like watching Star Trek or
some other science iction show thinking it was an historical
documentary, or watching a sitcom as if it were a religious parable, or
reading a satire as if it were a biography.241
Rick Warren, megachurch pastor and global spokesman for “purpose-
driven” church activism, is more pointed:
If you want Jesus to come back sooner, focus on ful illing your mission,
not iguring out prophecy.242
The former lead pastor of Mars Hill church, Mark Driscoll, elaborated:
We are not eschatological Theonomists or Classic Dispensationalists
 (e.g. Sco ield) and believe that divisive and dogmatic certainty
surrounding particular details of Jesus’ Second Coming are
unpro itable speculation, because the timing and exact details of His
return are unclear to us.243
Perhaps these pastors arrived at their dim view of Bible prophecy for
different reasons, but they arrived nonetheless, and their teachings and
attitudes have swept Christendom like a wild ire that refuses to be
contained. However, statements like these should bring to mind
Biblical warnings such as,
Knowing this irst, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his
coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they
were from the beginning of the creation. (2 Peter 3:3-4)
Transforming the Church
As the careful study of Bible prophecy has largely been left in the dust,
it has also led to the decline of the doctrine of Heaven that the church
has held as a bedrock belief since its founding some 2000 years ago.
With this decline has come a reorientation of worldview from heavenly
to earthly things. One could argue (I would not do so, however) that
there was no particular plot to discredit Bible prophecy and the
doctrine of Heaven per se, but there is no argument against the fact
that devilish forces immediately raced in to ill the vacuum. In order to
understand these forces and the “replacement”, it is necessary to
review the philosophical background of Communitarianism and its
major backers and proponents within the church.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary de ines Communitarian as “of or
relating to social organization in small cooperative partially collectivist
communities.” Some critics claim that Communitarianism is nothing
more than Communism, but this is not likely the case, and
Communitarians themselves reject this idea. Rather, it more likely
re lects Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Technetronic Era, his fourth and inal
stage of historical evolution, namely, “the ideal of rational humanism
on a global scale - the result of American-Communist evolutionary
transformations”.244 There is an apocalyptic lavor to
Communitarianism due to the fact that when Capitalism (represented
by America) and Communism collide head-on (i.e., toward
Technocracy) the resulting chaos will cause all sides to surrender to a
single ideology. Whether described from the perspective of
Technocracy, Smut’s Holism, Brzezinski’s Technetronic Era,
Brundtland’s Sustainable Development or Communitarianism, the
result is exactly the same: The individual ceases to have any intrinsic
value and instead receives worth only in direct proportion to his or her
position in, and contribution to, the community. All activity is directed
toward the “common good”.
One of the leading evangelists for Communitarianism in the last
century was the famous management consultant and proli ic author,
Peter Drucker (1909-2005). In a 1999 letter to Drucker, David
Rockefeller heaped praise on him by writing,
One of the pieces [articles] spoke of you appropriately as “the father of
modern management”. From my perspective, that was a fully justi ied
accolade. Your approach to management always appealed to me as
being more philosophical than dogmatic.… I learned more about how
to be a manager from you than from anyone else I can think of.245
Indeed, virtually every Fortune 500 company in the world has been
thoroughly baptized in management theory created by Drucker, and
countless millions of other managers have read his books, adapting
themselves accordingly. Of course, anyone who has worked for such a
corporation knows from direct experience that your value is
determined solely by your contribution to the “common good”. The day
that you cease to contribute to the common good of that company will
be the same day that you get ired. The corporate world is harsh in this
respect. Corporations build on the same team mentality found in
professional sports, and if you are “on the team” then you are expected
to always contribute to the team and to never contribute to the success
of any other team.
Drucker was steeped in Communitarianism and the application of
General System Theory to all business problems. During the 1990s, he
ine-tuned his “three-legged stool” doctrine that underscored the need
for compatibility among political, economic and social sectors of
society. During that time, he shifted his focus more toward the social
sector as a way to shore up de iciencies he saw in the political and
economic arenas. Accordingly, he wrote,
Only the social sector, that is, the nongovernmental, nonpro it
organization, can create what we now need, communities for
citizens – and especially for the highly educated knowledge workers
who increasingly dominate developed societies. One reason for this is
that only non-pro it organizations can provide the enormous
diversity of communities we need – from churches to professional
associations, from organizations taking care of the homeless to health
clubs – if there are to be freely chosen communities for everyone. The
nonpro it organizations also are the only ones that can satisfy the
second need of the city, the need for effective citizenship for its
people. Only social-sector institutions can provide opportunities to be
a volunteer, and thus enable individuals to have both a sphere in
which they are in control and a sphere in which they make a
difference.246 [Emphasis added]
In particular, Drucker decided to focus on the church, and speci ically,
the megachurch. According to one writer,
Peter Drucker calls the emergence of the large pastoral church – the
“megachurch” in mediaese – “the most signi icant social event in
America today.” He is its intellectual grandfather; he’s been
tutoring it for years through the agency of Bob Buford, a highly
successful Dallas-based television executive who in 1985 founded
the Leadership Network. “His Leadership Network,” Drucker writes
in his preface to Buford’s 1994 book Half-Time: Changing Your Game
Plan from Success to Signi icance, “worked as a catalyst to make the
large, pastoral churches work effectively, to identify their main
problems, to make them capable of perpetuating themselves (as no
earlier pastoral church has ever been able to do), and to focus them on
their mission as apostles, witnesses, and central community services.”
Modest, Buford says, “I’m the legs for his brain.”247
Who is Bob Buford? Until 1999, he was Chairman of the Board of
Buford Television, Inc., a nationwide network of stations and media
interests. Upon selling this business, Buford focused full-time on
philanthropy, writing and developing leadership tools for Christian
leaders, under the auspices of the organization he founded in 1984,
Leadership Network. According to an of icial bio on Buford, Peter
Drucker formally entered the picture in 1988:
In 1988, Dick Schubert, Frances Hesselbein and Bob Buford convinced
Peter Drucker to lend his name, his great mind, and occasionally his
presence to establish an operating foundation for the purpose of
leading social sector organizations toward excellence in performance.
Bob served as the Founding Chairman of the Board of Governors.
Through its conferences, publications and partnerships, The Drucker
Foundation (now titled Leader to Leader Institute) is helping social
sector organizations focus on their mission, achieve true
accountability, leverage innovation, and develop productive
partnerships.248
In 2008, Buford went on to establish The Drucker Institute at
Claremont College in California to house all of Drucker’s writings,
lectures and management ideas. Buford was subsequently appointed
Chairman of its Board of Advisors. Thus, the long and close relationship
between Peter Drucker and Bob Buford is well documented. However,
because of Buford’s pre-existing activism within the evangelical church
in America, the following statement on his bio describes him as
“someone wanting to make a difference through the application of his
faith and resources under the general mission of transforming the
latent energy of American Christianity into active energy.”249
Herein is cause for great alarm. What does “transforming the latent
energy of American Christianity into active energy” mean and where
did this mandate come from? From a Biblical perspective, the only
energy available to Christians and by extension, churches, is that which
is supplied by the Holy Spirit. (See “For God hath not given us the spirit
of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” (2 Timothy 1:7)
and “And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee” (Luke
4:14a.)
Remembering that Drucker had stated in 2001 that “I am not a born-
again Christian,”250 it was Drucker nonetheless who seeded Buford’s
mind with this “transforming the latent energy” doctrine, as he clearly
stated in a 2014 interview:
 Eight years into our work together Peter saw my mission in a single
sentence: “To transform the latent energy of American Christianity
into active energy.”251
It was life-changing for Buford at that point, ultimately leading him to
structure his entire Leadership Network operation, which primarily
served churches, around it. Buford explained,
Even then, I didn’t get it right away. I was walking along a road in East
Texas when I suddenly thought, “Whoa!” I stopped and wrote the
words down. He had said, “At this stage in your life”—he was a great
fan of innovation, so what works in one stage doesn’t in another—“it’s
our job to release and direct energy, not to supply it.”252
Short of any clear explanation on the source of such energy, and
considering it was Drucker’s idea in the irst place, the only possible
conclusion is that both men are referring to a man-centered, rather
than Holy Spirit-provided energy. To Drucker, the energy available to
the church needed to be pumped into the social community (towns and
cities) under the label of volunteerism, social action and other types of
community involvement. The third leg of his three-legged stool could
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’s remaining evangelical church movement. You might ask as
this point, “How did it spread?” According to the same interview,
Buford gives a hint:
So his [Drucker’s] in luence on me and the church was a happy
con luence of timing and readiness: of my pursing him and his genius
for management, our growing friendship, my interest in the church,
and the prepared minds of Bill Hybels and Rick Warren and other
pastors. When Peter appeared, they were ready. Peter said to me once
in an interview, “They didn’t say, ‘Look, leave us alone.’ They said ‘Give
us more. Where is it? We need you.’”253
Thus, we see that Drucker mentored not only Bob Buford but soon-to-
be megachurch pastors Rick Warren (Saddleback Church) and Bill
Hybels (Willow Creek Association). The combination of Drucker’s
Communitarian philosophy and his massive collection of management
resources thus became the new and fertile ground for America’s
megachurches and another postmodern phenomenon, the so-called
emergent church. In short, this was the beginning of the “transforming”
of the “latent energy of American Christianity”. More importantly, it is
what has illed the vacuum left by the waning of interest in Bible
prophecy and the doctrine of Heaven as discussed earlier. Today, this
newly transformed evangelical church is thoroughly focused on earthly,
rather than heavenly, endeavors. This is clearly re lected in statements
like these from churches (large and small) around the nation:

We are a family of faith, fully engaged, transforming our

community and our world. (Vancouver, Washington)
…dedicated to serving Jesus and people in the context of their
local community. (Seattle, Washington)
…partners with community minded individuals and
organizations to serve and transform our community. (Chapel
Hill, North Carolina)
We are a movement of people who understand we are Jesus’
plan to transform and heal communities. (Granger, Indiana)

I am not taking issue with any other church doctrine here, but only
pointing out the Communitarian in luence that Drucker has brought
into the church at large. The thought of renewing communities,
transforming neighborhoods and more broadly, building the Kingdom
of God on earth is now frequently seen as a re lection in contemporary
music as well. One popular contemporary song pleads,
Build Your kingdom here.
Let the darkness fear.
Show Your mighty hand.
Heal our streets and land.
Set Your church on ire.
Win this nation back.
Change the atmosphere.
Build Your kingdom here.
We pray.254
Of course, there is no Biblical mandate to heal our streets and land, to
win our nation back or to bring the Kingdom of God here. The Bible is
clear that the Kingdom of God is in Heaven where the King resides and
that those who belong to Him are “strangers and pilgrims” (1 Pet 2:11)
while on this earth. Elsewhere, Christians are also instructed to “not be
conformed to this world” but rather be “transformed by the renewing
of your mind” (Romans 12:2).
The result of this Communitarian error is having a profound impact
on thousands of churches in America as the doctrine continues to be
spread by Leadership Network and other organizations like it and by
people like Bob Buford, Rick Warren and Bill Hybels. It is a pernicious
error that redirects the believer’s energy from heavenly things to
earthly things, bringing about what the Bible labels as apostasy, or a
“falling away”.
Conclusion
There is little doubt historically, that Western thought and culture has
been signi icantly in luenced by the presence of the Christian church
and the Bible. In our country, starting with the founding documents like
the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution,
the founders were clearly immersed in Biblical thought and principles.
That is not to say that they were all Christians, but even those who
were not had great respect for those who were. The 20th century
theologian and Christian philosopher Dr. Francis Schaeffer called this
the “Christian consensus” and nothing more. It was a respect for and
elevation of wisdom found rooted in the Bible rather than in
humanistic man. In today’s post-modern society, the Bible is
completely irrelevant to those outside of the Church and unfortunately,
it hasn’t fared much better within the church. Whereas the Biblical
mandate for Christians is to be “salt and light” to the world, led by
pastors toward Godly living, many Christians instead have become
little more than community reformers led by community organizers.
And, of course, this is exactly what Peter Drucker desired more than
anything else during the last quarter of his life.
As the Christian consensus fades into the shadows, the stage is set for
a global sea change of unprecedented magnitude: A global
authoritarian and totalitarian government is on the immediate
horizon. Seeing this from a distance, this is exactly what Schaeffer
concluded when he wrote in 1976,
At that point the word left or right will make no difference. They are
only two roads to the same end. There is no difference between an
authoritarian government from the right or the left: The results are
the same. An elite, an authoritarianism as such, will gradually force
form on society so that it will not go on to chaos. And most people will
accept it - from the desire for personal peace and af luence, from
apathy, and from the yearning for order to assure the functioning of
some political system, business, and the affairs of daily life. That is just
what Rome did with Caesar Augustus.255
Of course, there is magni icent hope for all individual Christians who
are rooted in the promises of Christ found in the Bible. Outside of that,
the world and all who are in it, including those Christians who are
trying to reform it from within, may be in for a very rocky ride as the
world hurdles toward Technocracy and Transhumanism and ultimately,
toward totalitarian dictatorship.
At the same time and as an ending note, we must give space for God,
who is able to intervene in the affairs of man. And He is able to do as He
wishes. Christians can and should pray that He might exercise divine
intervention to turn the tide of rebellion back, and perhaps He will. In
the meantime, we all must answer Francis Schaeffer’s urgent question,
that in light of all these things, “How Should We Then Live?”
241 Brian D. Mclaren, The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth That Could Change Everything,
(Thomas-Nelson, 2007), p. 175-176.
242 Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life, (Zondervan, 2002), pp. 285-286.
243 Mark Driscoll, co-founder of Acts 29 Network, (http://www.acts29network.org/).
244 Zbigniew Brzezinski, p. 246.
245 Correspondence from David Rockefeller to Peter Drucker, November 30, 1999, Claremont Colleges Digital
Library.
246 Peter F. Drucker, “Civilizing the City”, Leader to Leader, 7 (Winter 1998): 8-10.
247 Jack Beatty, The World According to Peter Drucker, (New York: The Free Press, 1998), pp. 185-86.
248 Active Energy, About Bob Buford, (http://www.activeenergy.net/about-bob/).
249 Halftime Institute, Faculty, Founder. www.halftimeinstitute.org
250 Claremont Colleges Digital Library, Drucker Archives, Interview with Peter Drucker, 2001-12-05.
251 Interview by Warren Bird (President, Leadership Network) with Bob Buford on his book, Drucker and Me,
2014.
252 Ibid.
253 Ibid.
254 Build Your Kingdom Here lyrics, Rend Collective Experiment band.
255 Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture,
(Crossway Books, 1979), p. 244.
 APPENDIX II
1979 INTERVIEW WITH GEORGE S.
FRANKLIN, JR. COORDINATOR OF
THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION
Introduction
In the original analysis of the Trilateral Commission in the 1970s, the only persons to actually
interview and debate members of that elite group were Antony C. Sutton and me, Patrick Wood.
From 1978 through 1981, we together or individually engaged at least seven different Commission
members in public debate.
On July 27, 1979, Radio Station KLMG, Council Bluffs, Iowa aired a highly informative interview
with George S. Franklin, Jr., Coordinator of the Trilateral Commission and long-time associate of
David Rockefeller.
Joe Martin, the commentator on the program, invited authors Antony Sutton and Patrick Wood to
participate in the questioning. The program was probably the most penetrating view of
Trilateralism yet uncovered.
Only one complete transcript remains intact from those interviews, and it is reproduced below.
Hopefully, this will give you some insight into the inner workings, attitude and mindset of
Commission members.
Lest anyone make accusation that this transcript was selectively edited to show a “bad light” on
the Commission, it is reprinted in full, without edit. Editor’s comments are added in certain places
to clarify the facts, when appropriate, and are clearly identi ied to the reader as such. Members of
the Trilateral Commission are noted in bold type. The entire interview was irst and only
published in the Trilateral Observer in 1979, which was published by Patrick Wood and The
August Corporation.
The Interview
Commentator: Hello.
Wood: Hello.
Commentator: Is this Mr. Wood?
Wood: Yes, it is.
Commentator: Patrick Wood, we have Antony Sutton on the other line. You two are there now,
right?
Wood: Yes.
Commentator: Are you there too, Mr. Sutton?
Sutton: Yes.
Commentator: All right. Before we get Mr. Franklin on the phone, tell us, what is your concise
opinion of the Trilateral Commission?
Sutton: It would seem that this is David Rockefeller’s concept, his creation; he inanced it. The
Trilateral Commission has only 77 or so American members. It’s a closed elitist group. I do not
believe that they in any way represent general thinking in the United States. For example, they
want to restrict the rights of the media in violation of the Constitution.
[Ed: Compare this initial statement to Franklin’s admissions during the interview.]
Commentator: They want to restrict the rights of the media?
Sutton: Yes.
Commentator: All right, we have Mr. George Franklin on the phone right now, okay? Hang on,
gentlemen. Hello, am I talking to Mr. George S. Franklin?
Franklin: That is right.
Commentator: You are coordinator of the Trilateral Commission?
Franklin: That is right.
Commentator: Mr. Franklin, my name is Joe Martin. I have two other gentlemen on the line and I
have listeners on the line too, who would like to ask a few questions regarding the Trilateral
Commission. Are you prepared to answer some questions, sir?
Franklin: I hope so.
Commentator: Is the Trilateral commission presently involved in any effort to make a one-world?
Franklin: De initely not. We have not. We have no one-world doctrine. Our only belief that is
shared by most of the members of the Commission itself is that this world will somehow do better
if the advanced industrial democracy that serves Japan and the United States can cooperate and
talk things out together and try to work on programs rather than at cross purposes, but de initely
not any idea of a world government or a government of these areas.
[Ed: “De initely not,” says Franklin. Numerous statements in Trilateral writings show Franklin
is in error. For example: “The economic of icials of at least the largest countries must begin to
think in terms of managing a single world economy in addition to managing international
economic relations among countries,” Trilateral Commission Task Force Reports: 9-14, page
268.]
Commentator: Why is it, in the Trilateral Commission that the name David Rockefeller shows up
so persistently or [the name of] one of his organizations?
Franklin: Well, this is very reasonable. David Rockefeller is the Chairman of the North American
group. There are three chairmen: one is [with] the North American group, one is [with]the
Japanese group, and one is [with] the European group. Also, the Commission was really David
Rockefeller’s original idea.
[Ed:Note that Franklin does not say (at this point) that the Trilateral Commission was inanced
and established by David Rockefeller.]
Commentator: On President Carter’s staff, how many Trilateral Commission members do you
have?
Franklin: Eighteen.
Commentator: Don’t you think that is rather heavy?
Franklin: It is quite a lot, yes.
Commentator: Don’t you think it is rather unusual? How many members are there actually in the
Trilateral Commission?
Franklin: We have 77 in the United States.
Commentator: Don’t you think it is rather unusual to have 18 members on the Carter staff?
Franklin: Yes, I think we chose some very able people when we started the Commission. The
President happens to think well of quite a number of them.
Commentator: All right, we would like to bring in our two other guests - men who have written a
book on the Trilateral Commission. You may be familiar with Mr. Antony Sutton and Mr. Patrick
Wood?
Franklin: I have not met them, but I do know their names, yes.
Commentator: Mr. Sutton and Mr. Wood, would you care to ask Mr. Franklin a question?
Sutton: Well, I certainly would. This is Tony Sutton. You have 77 members of which 18 are in the
Carter Administration. Do you believe that the only able people in the United States are
Trilateralists?
Franklin: Of course not, and incidentally, the 18 are no longer members of the Commission
because this is supposed to be a private organization and as soon as anybody joins the government
they no longer are members of the Commission.
Sutton: Yes, but they are members of the Commission when they join.
Franklin: That is correct.
Sutton: Do you believe that the only able people in the United States are Trilateralists?
Franklin: Of course not.
Sutton: Well, how come the heavy percentage?
Franklin: Well, when we started to choose members, we did try to pick out the ablest people we
could and I think many of those that are in the Carter Administration would have been chosen by
any group that was interested in the foreign policy question.
Sutton: Would you say that you have an undue in luence on policy in the United States?
Franklin: I would not, no.
Sutton: I think any reasonable man would say that if you have 18 Trilateralists out of 77 in the
Carter Administration you have a preponderant in luence.
Franklin: These men are not responsive to anything that the Trilateral Commission might
advocate. We do have about two reports we put out each year, and we do hope they have some
in luence or we would not put them out.
[Ed: The Trilateral Commission puts out considerably more than two reports each year. In
1974 and 1976, it was four in each year plus four issues of “Trialogue”]
Sutton: May I ask another question?
Franklin: Yes.
Sutton: Who inanced the Trilateral Commission originally?
Franklin: Uhh. . .The irst supporter of all was a foundation called the Kettering Foundation. I can
tell you who is inancing it at the present time, which might be of more interest to you.
[Ed: This is what Franklin said in another interview: “In the meantime, David Rockefeller and
the Kettering Foundation had provided transitional funding.”]
Sutton: Is it not the Rockefeller Brothers’ Fund?
Franklin: The Rockefeller Brothers’ Fund? The North American end of the Commission needs $1.5
million over the next 3 years. Of this amount, $180,000 will be contributed by the Rockefeller
Brother’s fund and $150,000 by David Rockefeller.
Commentator: Does that mean that most of it is being inanced by the Rockefellers?
Franklin: No, it means that about one ifth of the North American end is being inanced by the
Rockefellers and none of the European and Japanese end.
Commentator: Do you have any further questions, Mr. Sutton?
Sutton: No, I do not.
Commentator: Do you have a question, Mr. Wood?
Wood: Yes, I have one question. In reading your literature and reports, there is a great deal of
mention of the term “Interdependence”.
Franklin: Right.
Wood: While we can see that there is some need for the world to cooperate in many areas, this
system of interdependence seems to have some very profound effect on the United States
structure as it is today. For instance, our national structure versus the interdependent structure in
the world. Now, do you feel that this interdependent structure has been properly presented to the
American public for approval or disapproval?
Franklin: Well, I don’t think that it is a question of approval or disapproval altogether. For example,
we get a great deal of our natural resources from abroad. Everybody knows that we get a great
deal of oil from abroad. So, whether we like it or not, we are much more dependent on other
nations that we used to be. Now, this does not mean that they make our decisions for us on what
our policies are going to be, and our energy policies are made here by the President and Congress.
Now, they do consult others about them because they have to, because unfortunately we are
forced to become interdependent.
[Ed: The term “interdependent” is a key word in Trilateralism. Think for a moment: The known
world has always been more or less interdependent. Trilateralists use “interdependence” in a
manner analogous to the propaganda methods of Goebbels: if you repeat a phrase often
enough people will begin to accept it automatically in the required context. The required
context for Trilaterals is to get across the idea that “one-world” is inevitable.”]
Commentator: Does that answer your question, Mr. Wood?
Wood: Well, perhaps not completely, let me phrase that another way. Do you feel that your policy -
that is, those who represent the Trilateral policy as well as interdependence - do you feel that that
philosophy is in accord with the typical American philosophy of nationalism and democracy and
so on?
Franklin: Well, I think I would answer that this way. First, we are in fact interdependent. I say,
unfortunately, we depend on much more that we used to. Therefore, we have to cooperate far
more than we used to. But, that does not mean that we are giving other people the right to
determine our policy and we do not advocate that. You will not ind that in any of our reports.
[Ed: Notice how Franklin ducks around the key issue presented by Wood, i.e., whether the
concept as used by Trilaterals is inconsistent with generally accepted American ideals. Wood
said nothing about “...giving other people the right to determine our policy.” This is a straw
man erected by Franklin to duck the issue.]
Wood: Do you feel that the Trilateral Commission position has been publicized really at all around
the country?
Franklin: We try to publicize it, we do not altogether succeed because there are so many other
people who also want publicity, but we do try. Anything we do is open to public scrutiny.
[Ed: The August Corporation had recently commissioned a thorough search of the massive
New York Times computerized data base. We came up with a very meager list of references to
Trilateralism. Only 71 references in the past six years in all major U.S. and foreign publications.
Many of these were no more than short paragraphs. We know that the Trilateral Commission
mailing list has only 4,000 names including all its 250 members and 600 or so Congressmen
and elitists. In brief, media coverage has been - and is - extremely small. The 71 citations by the
way include mostly critical articles from independent authors. It also includes such efforts as
the Time front-page promotion of Jimmy Carter for President - probably the key effort on
Carter’s behalf. Hedley Donovan was then Editor-in-Chief of Time.]
Commentator: Mr. Sutton?
Sutton: Paul Volcker was a member of the Trilateral Commission and has just been appointed
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Does Paul Volcker have any connection with Chase
Manhattan which is dominated by Rockefellers?
Franklin: He was, quite a long time ago, on the staff of [Chase] Manhattan.
[Ed: Paul Volcker has twice worked for Chase Manhattan Bank. In the 1950s as an economist and
again in the 1960s as Vice President for Planning. We cannot deny that Volcker “knows about
(Trilateral) inancial policies” as stated by Franklin.]
Sutton: Don’t you think that this is quite an unhealthy situation, where you have a man connected
with Chase who is now Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board? Doesn’t this give some credence
to the criticism of elitism?
Franklin: Con lict of interest?
Sutton: Yes.
Franklin: It does give some credence to it. On the other hand, it is very important that the
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank know about our inancial policies and, therefore, will
certainly have been connected to some inancial institution. This has not always been the case. I
think that anyone who knows Paul Volcker, knows that he is an extraordinarily objective person.
I think if you would notice, that the editorial comments on his appointments were almost
uniformly favorable, there must have been some that were unfavorable, but I have not seen them.
Sutton: May I ask another question?
Commentator: Go Ahead.
Sutton: Mr. Donovan, of Time-Life, has just been appointed Special Assistant to President Carter.
Mr. Donovan is a member of your Commission.
Franklin: That is correct.
Sutton: Does this not emphasize the fact that the Carter Administration is choosing its
administration from an extremely a narrow range. In other words, the Trilateral Commission?
Franklin: I do not think that that needs any con irmation. That is a matter of fact that he has
chosen most of his main foreign policy people, I would have to say, from the people he got to
know while he was on the Trilateral Commission.
 [Ed: Franklin admits that the “Carter Administration is choosing its administration from an
extremely narrow range.”]
Sutton: Well, I can only make the statement that this leaves any reasonable man with the
impression that the Carter Administration is dominated by the Trilateral Commission with your
speci ic ideas which many people do not agree with.
Franklin: Well, I would certainly agree that people who were members of the Commission have
predominant places in the foreign policy aspects of the Carter Administration. They are not,
because they are members of the Commission, controlled in any sense by us. I do think that they
do share a common belief that is very important that we work particularly with Europe and Japan
or we are all going to be in trouble.
Sutton: But this common belief may not re lect the beliefs of the American people. How do you
know that it does?
Franklin: I do not know that it does. I am no man to interpret what the people think about.
Sutton: In other words, you are quite willing to go ahead [and] establish a Commission which you
say does not necessarily re lect the views of the people in the United States? It appears to me that
you have taken over political power.
Franklin: I do not think this is true at all. Anybody who forms a group for certain purposes
obviously tries to achieve these purposes. We do believe that it is important that Europe, Japan,
and the United States get along together. That much we do believe. We also chose the best people
we could get as members of the Commission. Fortunately, nearly all accepted. The President was
one of them and he happened to have thought that these were very able people indeed, and he
asked them to be in his government, it is as simple as that. If you are going to ask me if I am very
unhappy about that, the answer is no. I think that these are good people.
Wood: May I ask a little bit more pointedly, if Carter got his education from the Trilateral
Commission, was not his dean of students, so to speak, Mr. Brzezinski?
Franklin: I cannot tell you exactly what role Brzezinski had, but certainly he did have considerable
effect on the education Carter received on foreign policy.
Wood: Mr. Brzezinski is on record in more than one of his books as being a proponent of
rejuvenating or redesigning the U.S. Constitution, is this correct?
Franklin: I have not read all his books, I have not seen that statement, and I have worked with him
very closely for three years and he has not said anything of that sort to me.
Wood: As a matter of fact, he is on record and in one of his books as indicating that the U.S.
Constitution as it is today is not able to lead us into an interdependent world and that it should be
redesigned to re lect the interdependence that we must move ahead towards.
Franklin: As I say, if you tell me that, I must believe it, and I have not read that book and I have
never got any inkling of that between 1973 and 1976.
[Ed: Here is what Brzezinski writes in one of his books Between Two Ages: America’s Role in
the Technetronic Era:
Tension is unavoidable as man strives to assimilate the new into the framework of the old. For
a time the established framework resiliently integrates the new by adapting it in a more
familiar shape. But at some point the old framework becomes overloaded. The new input can
no longer be rede ined into traditional forms, and eventually it asserts itself with compelling
force. Today, though, the old framework of international politics - with their spheres of
 in luence, military alliances between nation-states, the iction of sovereignty, doctrinal
con licts arising from nineteenth century crises - is clearly no longer compatible with reality.”
and speci ically on changing the U.S. Constitution:
The approaching two-hundredth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence could justify
the call for a national constitutional convention to re-examine the nation’s formal institutional
framework. Either 1976 or 1989 - the two-hundredth anniversary of the Constitution could
serve as a suitable target date culminating a national dialogue on the relevance of existing
arrangements... Realism, however, forces us to recognize that the necessary political
innovation will not come from direct constitutional reform, desirable as that would be. The
needed change is more likely to develop incrementally and less overtly ... in keeping with the
American tradition of blurring distinctions between public and private institution.
Obviously Franklin is either unaware of the writing of his “close” associate Brzezinski or is
evading the question.]
Commentator: I would like to interject a question if I could. Mr. Franklin, within the Trilateral
Commission, are there any Trilateralists who have control of the energy resources in this world?
Franklin: No. We have no major oil companies represented on the Commission.
Commentator: I mean stockholders in oil companies.
Franklin: I am sure that David Rockefeller must have some stock in an oil company. I do not
know.
Commentator: Doesn’t David Rockefeller have stock in Chase National Bank?
Franklin: De initely
Commentator: Doesn’t Chase National Bank have stock in Exxon?
Franklin: Honestly, I do not know.
Commentator: Standard Oil? Mobil?
Sutton: Well, I do.
Franklin: I would be certain that some of their pension trusts and some of the trusts that they hold
for individuals, undoubtedly do.
Commentator: So, the Trilateral Commission has no effect at all in the energy ield at all?
Franklin: Yes, the Trilateral Commission has written a report on energy. There were three authors,
there were always three authors. The American author was John Sawhill, who was formerly
head of the Energy Administration and is now presently of New York University.
Commentator: I have read where the oil and gas world is dominated by seven major irms, do you
agree with that?
Franklin: I do not have expertise in this ield, but I think it sounds reasonable.
Commentator: Well, a listing of controlling ownership in these major oil and gas companies by
banks - by Trilateral Commissioners - is listed as Manufacturer’s Hanover, Chase Bank, Wells Fargo
Bank, First National Bank of Chicago, and First Continental of Illinois. And these all supposedly are
of Trilateral representation. Is that true, sir?
Franklin: No, sir, it is not true. Give me the list again. I think I can tell you which are and which are
not.
Commentator: Manufacturer’s Hanover.
Franklin: No, sir, it is not.
Commentator: There are no stockholders in that, who are members of the Trilateral Commission?
Franklin: Wait a minute. I cannot tell you whether there are no stockholders in Manufacturer’s
Hanover. I might even be a stockholder in Manufacturer’s Hanover. I am not.
Commentator: Chase Manhattan igures prominently.
Franklin: Chase Manhattan certainly.
Commentator: …which is David Rockefeller’s Bank!
Franklin: There is no question about that.
Commentator: So there is some connection with the energy ield.
Franklin: Well, yes.
Commentator: So, if Chase Manhattan has stock in Exxon, Mobil, and Standard Oil, then there is a
direct connection there?
Franklin: I am sure that is true. Every bank runs pension trusts, so it must have some of its trust
money in some of those companies.
Commentator: I have read, and I do not know if it is true, you may answer this, that Chase
Manhattan is a number one stockholder in Exxon, number three in Mobil, and number two in
Standard Oil.
Franklin: I just would not know.
Commentator: Do you have any questions, Mr. Sutton?
Sutton: Yes, the igures you have just quoted about Chase Manhattan stock ownership in the oil
companies: these were published by the U.S. Senate some years ago. There is a series of these
volumes. One, for example, is entitled Disclosure of Corporate Ownership.
[Ed: Any reader investigating further should note that the ownership is heavily
disguised by use of nominee companies. For example “Cudd & Co.” is a ictitious
nominee name for Chase Manhattan Bank.]
A partial list of nominees which have been used by Chase Manhattan Bank includes the
following:
Andrews & Co. Elzay & Co. Reeves & Co.
Bedle & Co Gansel & Co. Ring & Co.
Bender & Co. Gooss & Co. Ryan & Co.
Chase Nominees Ltd. Gunn & Co. Settle & Co
Clint & Co. Kane & Co. Taylor & Witt
Cudd & Co. McKenna & Co. Timm & Co.
Dell & Co. Padom & Co. Titus & Co.
Egger & Co. Pickering Ltd. White & Co.
Ehren & Co.
Franklin: I am sure that these banks could run billions of dollars through trusts and some of the
trusts must be invested in some of these major oil companies.
Commentator: Then the Trilateral Commission member who has stock in the bank and who is also
a high-ranking Trilateral Commission member, would have some jurisdiction over energy?
Franklin: No, not really. I know some of the management of these companies. They are not
controlled by the stockholders the way they used to be.
Wood: Let’s put that question another way if we might. It perhaps would be erroneous to say
Chase Manhattan Bank controlled Exxon, because in fact, they do not. However, Chase Manhattan
Bank is the largest single shareholder that Exxon has. Considering the discussion going on about
the major oil companies, and their part in this energy crisis, don’t you think that it would be
possible to exercise control from Chase Manhattan Bank to put pressure on Exxon to help alleviate
the energy crisis?
Franklin: Well, I think you could answer that kind of question just as well, as I can. Everybody has
their own views on these things.
Commentator: You must be familiar with the members of your Commission, especially with Mr.
Rockefeller and his various holdings?
Franklin: I am extremely familiar with Mr. Rockefeller. I have known him for nearly 50 years.
Commentator: ... and his holdings?
Franklin: I am not at all familiar with his holdings.
Commentator: I think everybody is familiar with his holdings. I thought everybody was familiar
with his holdings, I know he owns Chase Manhattan Bank.
Franklin: No, that is not true.
Commentator: I mean, he is the largest stockholder.
Franklin: That, I would agree to. I would say that he has about ive percent, I am not sure.
Commentator: Five percent? Would you agree with that, Mr. Sutton?
Sutton: Yes, plus he is chairman of the board.
Franklin: Yes, that is correct. I have no doubt that he does control Chase Manhattan Bank.
Commentator: You have no doubt about that?
Franklin: No, basically, no. Directors are important.
Commentator: Do you have any doubt that as chairman, he controls the bank and Chase
Manhattan also controls or at least partly controls the American Electric Power [the utility
company]?
Franklin: I do not know anything about it.
Commentator: You are not sure about that?
Franklin: I just don’t know. These things do not ever really enter into consideration. If you look at
our energy report that will tell you whether you think this is an objective or effective document
or not.
[Ed: Chase Manhattan Bank owns 1,646,706 shares of American Electric Power Company
through two nominees, <Kane & Co. (1,059,967 shares) and Cudd & Co. (586,739 shares)>. This
gives it a direct 2.8 percent of the total. However, numerous other holding in American Electric
Power are maintained by banks and irms where Chase has some degree of control. For
example, Morgan Guaranty has almost 500,000 shares and is dominated by J.P. Morgan; the
second largest stockholder in J.P. Morgan is Chase Manhattan Bank.]
Commentator: Mr. Sutton?
Sutton: Can we go off energy for a while?
Commentator: Yes.
Sutton: I have a question for Mr. Franklin. Who chooses the members of the Trilateral
commission?
Franklin: The Trilateral Commission’s Executive Committee.
Sutton: Who comprises the committee?
Franklin: Who is on that committee?
Sutton: Yes.
Franklin: Okay. William Coleman, former Secretary of Transportation, who is a lawyer; Lane
Kirkland, who is Secretary-General of the American Federation of Labor; Henry Kissinger, who
does not need too much identi ication; Bruce McLaury, who is president of the Brookings
Institution; David Rockefeller; Robert Ingersoll, who was formerly Deputy Secretary of State
and Ambassador to Japan; I. W. Able, who was formerly head of United Steelworkers; and
William Roth, who is a San Francisco businessman and was chief trade negotiator in the previous
Kennedy trade round.
Sutton: May I ask a question? How many of these have a rather intimate business relationship with
Mr. Rockefeller?
Franklin: Henry Kissinger is chairman of Mr. Rockefeller’s Chase Advisory Committee.
Sutton: Coleman?
Franklin: Coleman, I don’t think has any business relationship with him, he is a lawyer.
[Ed: In fact William Coleman is a Director of Chase Manhattan Bank which Franklin has
already admitted to be controlled by David Rockefeller.]
Sutton: Mr. Ingersoll?
Franklin: Mr. Ingersoll, I don’t think has any business relationship.
Sutton: Isn’t he connected with First Chicago?
Franklin: He is vice chairman of the University of Chicago.
Sutton: No, what about the First Bank of Chicago? [First Chicago Corp.]
Franklin: I don’t believe that Ingersoll has any relationship with banks in Chicago, but I don’t know
for certain on that.
[Ed: Robert Stephen Ingersoll before joining the Washington “revolving door” was a director of
the First National Bank of Chicago, a subsidiary of First Chicago Corp. The largest single
shareholder in First Chicago is David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank. Ingersoll has also
been a director of Atlantic Rich ield and Burlington Northern. Chase Manhattan is also the
largest single stockholder in these two companies. Thus, Ingersoll has a long standing
relationship with Rockefeller interests.]
Commentator: We are adding another man to the interview, his name is Mr. John Rees, a very ine
writer from the Review of the News, Washington, D.C., who is in the area right at this time to make
some speeches.
Sutton: Mr. Franklin, do you believe in freedom of the press in the United States?
Franklin: De initely, of course.
Sutton: Let me quote you from a book Crisis In Democracy, written by Michel Crozier, who is a
Trilateral member.
Franklin: Correct.
Sutton: I am quoting from page 35 of his book: “The media has thus become an autonomous
power. We are now witnessing a crucial change with the profession. That is, media tends to
regulate itself in such a way as to resist the pressure from inancial or government interests.” Does
that not mean that you want to restrict the press in some way?
Franklin: I can’t quite hear you.
Sutton: Let me paraphrase this for you. I think I will be clear in my paraphrasing. The Trilateral
Commission is unhappy with the press because it resists the pressure from inancial or
government interests. That is one of your statements.
Franklin: Now, let me say something about our book. The book that we put out, the report, is the
responsibility of the authors and not of the Commission itself. You will ind that in the back of a
number of them, and that book is one of them, that other members of the Commission will hear
dissenting views, and you will ind dissenting views in the back of that book on the press question.
Sutton: I would like to quote a further statement from the same book and leave the questions at
that point: “The media deprives government and to some extent other responsible authorities of
the time lag and tolerance that make it possible to innovate and to experiment responsibly.” What
the book recommends is something like the Interstate Commerce Commission to control the press.
This seems to me to be a violation of the Constitution.
Franklin: I would agree with you that we do not want something like the Interstate Commerce
Commission to control the press.
[Ed: Michel Crozier, et al, in Crisis In Democracy make the following statements with reference
to the “Interstate Commerce Act and the Sherman Anti-trust Act”:
“Something comparable appears to be now needed with respect to the media.... there is also
the need to assure to the government the right and the ability to withhold information at the
source” (page 182).
The authors go on to argue that if journalists do not conform to these new restrictive
standards then “The alternative could well be regulation by the government.”]
Sutton: I fail to understand why the Trilateral Commission would associate itself with such a
viewpoint.
Franklin: As I just mentioned to you. We hired three authors for each report. The authors are
allowed to say what they think is correct. What the Trilateral Commission does is this: It says we
think this report is worthwhile for the public to see. This does not mean that all the members of
the Commission agree with all the statements in the report and, in fact, a majority of them might
disagree with certain things. Now, where a statement is one that many Commissioners seem to
disagree with we then do put in the back a summary of the discussion. That book does have a
summary of the discussion of our meeting which questions various things in the book, in the back
of it.
Sutton: Would you say Mr. Franklin that the members of the Commission do have a common
philosophy?
Franklin: Yes. I think a common philosophy. I think that all of them believe that this world will
work better if the principal industrial powers consult each other on their policies and try to work
them out together. This does not mean that they will agree on everything. Of course, they won’t.
But, at least they will know what the other countries feel, and why they feel it.
Sutton: The Financial Times in London -- the editor is Ferdy Fisher, a Trilateralist. He ired a long
time editorial writer, Gordon Tether, because Tether wanted to write articles criticizing the
Trilateral Commission. Do you have any comments?
Franklin: I didn’t know that at all. It sounds terribly unlikely, but if you say that it is so, probably it
is.
[Ed: See Chapter Seven “Trilateral Censorship: the case of C. Gordon Tether” in Trilaterals Over
Washington. Trilaterals see the media as the “gatekeeper” and comment as follows:
“Their main impact is visibility. The only real event is the event that is reported and seen. Thus,
journalists possess a crucial role as gatekeepers of one of the central dimensions of public
life.”]
Rees: Frankly, Mr. Martin, with Antony Sutton on the line, I feel absolutely a novice, because
Antony is a real expert on the Trilateral.
Sutton: Well, I am looking for information.
Commentator: Are you getting information?
Sutton: Yes, I am very de initely getting information.
Commentator: Do you have any other questions?
Sutton: Not at the moment. I’d rather hear someone else.
Commentator: All right.
Wood: I do have one question, if I might. You mentioned earlier that as you decided to issue a
report, whether it re lected Trilateral policy or not, you felt that it was worthy to be shared with
the public. Is that correct?
Franklin: We do not have a Trilateral policy, except for the very broad policy [which] is that each
of these major areas ought to know what the other countries are doing and why and try to work
things out as much as possible. That is our only Trilateral policy, I would say. We don’t have a
policy on energy and a policy on monetary reform and a policy on, etc.
[Ed: The latest issue of Trialogue (Summer 1979) has an opening paragraph as follows:
“The draft report presented in Tokyo by the Trilateral Task Force on Payments Imbalances
analyzes the extreme payments imbalances which have marked the world economy
throughout the 1970’s and offers a series of broad policy recommendations…”
Part II of the same issue has the following opening paragraph:
“The draft report presented in Tokyo by the Trilateral Task Force on Industrial Policy... reviews
the desirable aims and criteria of trilateral industrial policies and their international
implications.”
Yet Franklin asserts “We don’t have a policy on energy and a policy on monetary reform, etc.”]
Wood: Okay, let me ask a question. Based on that then, what efforts have you made, if any, to
publish these articles or these studies so they might be reviewed by the general American public?
For instance, I have never seen one study published in any major popular magazine, whether it be
Time Magazine, a newspaper -- in fact, there have been very few references. Over a period of six
years now, there have been few mentions of the name “Trilateral Commission” in the nation’s
press. This is backed up by the New York Times data base, which is one of the most extensive in the
world. Now if these are made public, can you tell me how these are made public?
Franklin: Yes. What we do is, that we have a list of about 4,000 people, some of whom request
them and some of whom we thought would be interested if we sent them -- and we send them free
-- and we would be glad to send them to you, for example, if you would like to have them. Now we
also, when we publish, when we send them out to a considerable list of press correspondents. We
also have press lunches and things. Because of the nature of this thing, it can’t be printed in full,
because they are just too long. No newspaper wants to print a 40- or 50-page study. But, there
have been mentions of one or two of the studies in Newsweek. We would like to get more
published, frankly, very much more than we have been getting. Now in Japan, for example, we
have done much better. At our last plenary session in Tokyo, members of the Commission who
were there, gave over 90 separate interviews to members of the Japanese press who were present.
In fact, there were many more requests than that which we could not honor because there was
not time. We have not done anything like as well in this country.
Wood: Allow me to ask you this. This takes speci ically one case, the case of Time Magazine.
Hedley Donovan is the former editor-in-chief of that magazine. I understand he is recently
retired, and also you have as a member of your Commission, Sol Linowitz, also a director of Time.
Now, Time-Life books, of course, you have Time Magazine, Fortune, Money and People. Now I
would ask you -- considering the special advantage you have by having such a giant as Hedley
Donovan and Sol Linowitz as well, both connected to Time -- don’t you feel that if you really
wanted to publicize these “position papers” that it would only take a scratch of the pen by Mr.
Donovan?
Franklin: No, I don’t, and I will tell you why. Hedley Donovan is not only a member of the
Commission, but he is one of my close personal friends. Hedley Donovan is also a person of great
integrity. He will not publish anything we do because he is connected with it. He looks out for the
interest of Time, and he does not feel we were worth Time publicity, and I am sure he will be
exactly the same way in the White House. He is going to be loyal to his President and to his job.
Wood: But Time Magazine is the largest news magazine in the country?
Franklin: Right. We only had a little publicity, but we had only what Hedley would have given,
whether or not he was a member of the Commission.
Wood: So, he basically thinks that the Commission really does not matter.
Franklin: No. He does not, or he would not be a member of the Commission at all. Time Magazine
does give us some money, not very much, but $2,500 a year to be exact. But, his editorial judgment
is not biased by the fact that he is a member of the Commission.
Commentator: Mr. Rees, would you like to ask a question?
Rees: Yes, Mr. Franklin, I noticed that you were saying that the Trilateral Commission takes no
responsibility for the use of the publisher’s imprimatur, but I would be interested to know about
how you go about selecting your writers to put out the various positions.
Franklin: Well that is a very interesting question. We have a meeting with the chairmen. The way
the situation is organized is this. There are three chairmen, one from each of the three areas. Three
secretaries, one from each of the three areas, and I have got an intermediate staff job called
“coordinator.” Now, the chairmen and secretaries meet with what they have jointly, will discuss
not only topics they think will be useful to have, but also authors for these topics. The topics are
then discussed by the whole Commission and approved or changed slightly. The authors are
chosen by members of the staff and consultation with the chairmen.
Rees: So, although you do not take responsibility for the inished product you are responsible for
the selection of the writers.
Franklin: Very much. No question about that.
Rees: So it does have your imprimatur stamp of approval each time?
Franklin: In that sense. We certainly choose the writers, and we choose them because we think
they are very good, obviously. So far, every single report that has been written by the authors has,
in fact, been accepted for publication by the Commission.
Rees: Then the report on the news media was accepted?
Franklin: It was accepted, but there was a lot of disagreement with that. It was felt that it was an
important statement, with quite a lot of interesting new ideas in it. It was also a very strong
opposition which was re lected in the back of the report in a section, I think it is entitled,
“Summary of Discussion.”
Commentator: Mr. Sutton, do you have any other questions?
Sutton: I have one more question, that goes to a new ield entirely: taxation. We have established
that David Rockefeller is chairman and the single most powerful in luence in Chase Manhattan
Bank. Now, do you happen to know the tax rate that Chase Manhattan pays in the United States?
Franklin: I don’t know . . . happen to know -- it is about 50% [ ifty percent].
Sutton: I will give you some igures. In 1976, Chase Manhattan Bank’s tax rate was precisely zero. I
am wondering why, if you are so in luential politically, why at least you cannot pay a tax rate more
equivalent to that of the average American Taxpayer, which is 15% or 20% or 30%?
Franklin: I have nothing to do with Chase Manhattan Bank. But if the tax rate was zero, it must
have been because it had very large real estate losses in that year, I think.
Sutton: In 1975, it was 3.4%. It is always way under 10%.
Franklin: Well, that is extremely interesting. It is a new fact for me.
Sutton: Well, my point is this, that you are willing to guide the United States into the future, but
apparently you are not willing to pay your fair share of the costs.
Commentator: You are talking about the Commission members as a whole?
Sutton: Yes.
Franklin: I think you will ind that the Commission members pay whatever the laws says they are
supposed to pay under the circumstances. I do not know what the particular reason was on Chase.
They did have heavy losses. I am not familiar enough with their situation to be able to tell it to you.
Wood: May I ask another question along that same line, please?
Commentator: Go ahead.
Wood: In that same year, 1976, it is recorded that some 78% of Chase Manhattan’s earnings came
from International operations. That leaves 22% from the U.S... Don’t you think perhaps this might
be a con lict of interest, between choosing their international policy versus their domestic policy
in the United States?
Franklin: Well, I think that is true of most of the major banks. Now, that does not answer your
question, I recognize.
Wood: Where would their loyalty lie? If on one hand they are trying to look out for America, yet
on the other hand they are trying to look out for their bread and butter, which is not America.
Franklin: First, in the long run, I think any of our major corporations must recognize, that unless
the United States does well, they are going to be in the soup. Secondly, some of these people, you
may or may not believe it, have enough integrity, they can divorce their interest, like Hedley
Donovan could, on the question of publicity on the Trilateral Commission.
Commentator: Gentlemen, I think we are running out of time here. I think we have reached the end
of the interview. We would like to thank you, Mr. Franklin, Mr. Wood, and Mr. Sutton. Thank you
for being guests on our show.
 APPENDIX III
T E C
Preamble
We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when
humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly
interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and
great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of
a magni icent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human
family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join
together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect
for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of
peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth,
declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of
life, and to future generations.
Earth, Our Home
Humanity is part of a vast evolving universe. Earth, our home, is alive
with a unique community of life. The forces of nature make existence a
demanding and uncertain adventure, but Earth has provided the
conditions essential to life’s evolution. The resilience of the community
of life and the well-being of humanity depend upon preserving a
healthy biosphere with all its ecological systems, a rich variety of
plants and animals, fertile soils, pure waters, and clean air. The global
environment with its inite resources is a common concern of all
peoples. The protection of Earth’s vitality, diversity, and beauty is a
sacred trust.
The Global Situation
The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing
environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive
extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The bene its
of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and
poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent con lict are
widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in
human population has overburdened ecological and social systems.
The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are
perilous—but not inevitable.
The Challenges Ahead
The choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and
one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of
life. Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and
ways of living. We must realize that when basic needs have been met,
human development is primarily about being more, not having more.
We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce
our impacts on the environment. The emergence of a global civil
society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and
humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and
spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge
inclusive solutions.
Universal Responsibility
To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of
universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth
community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of
different nations and of one world in which the local and global are
linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-
being of the human family and the larger living world. The spirit of
human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live
with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life,
and humility regarding the human place in nature.
We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical
foundation for the emerging world community. Therefore, together in
hope we af irm the following interdependent principles for a
sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of
all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and
transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.
P
I. RESPECT AND CARE FOR THE COMMUNITY OF LIFE
1. Respect Earth and life in all its diversity.
a. Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life
has value regardless of its worth to human beings.
b. Af irm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings and in the
intellectual, artistic, ethical, and spiritual potential of humanity.
2. Care for the community of life with understanding, compassion,
and love.
a. Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources
comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to protect the
rights of people.
b. Af irm that with increased freedom, knowledge, and power comes
increased responsibility to promote the common good.
3. Build democratic societies that are just, participatory,
sustainable, and peaceful.
a. Ensure that communities at all levels guarantee human rights and
fundamental freedoms and provide everyone an opportunity to
realize his or her full potential.
b. Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure
and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.
4. Secure Earth’s bounty and beauty for present and future
generations.
a. Recognize that the freedom of action of each generation is quali ied
by the needs of future generations.
b. Transmit to future generations values, traditions, and institutions
that support the long-term lourishing of Earth’s human and
ecological communities.
In order to ful ill these four broad commitments, it is necessary to:
II. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
5. Protect and restore the integrity of Earth’s ecological systems,
with special concern for biological diversity and the natural
processes that sustain life.
a. Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations
that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral
 to all development initiatives.
b. Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reserves,
including wild lands and marine areas, to protect Earth’s life
support systems, maintain biodiversity, and preserve our natural
heritage.
c. Promote the recovery of endangered species and ecosystems.
d. Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modi ied organisms
harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent
introduction of such harmful organisms.
e. Manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest
products, and marine life in ways that do not exceed rates of
regeneration and that protect the health of ecosystems.
f. Manage the extraction and use of non-renewable resources such as
minerals and fossil fuels in ways that minimize depletion and
cause no serious environmental damage.
6. Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection
and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary
approach.
a. Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible
environmental harm even when scienti ic knowledge is incomplete
or inconclusive.
b. Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed
activity will not cause signi icant harm, and make the responsible
parties liable for environmental harm.
c. Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term,
indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human
activities.
d. Prevent pollution of any part of the environment and allow no build-
up of radioactive, toxic, or other hazardous substances.
e. Avoid military activities damaging to the environment.
7. Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction
that safeguard Earth’s regenerative capacities, human rights,
and community well-being.
a. Reduce, reuse, and recycle the materials used in production and
 consumption systems, and ensure that residual waste can be
assimilated by ecological systems.
b. Act with restraint and ef iciency when using energy, and rely
increasingly on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.
c. Promote the development, adoption, and equitable transfer of
environmentally sound technologies.
d. Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and
services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify
products that meet the highest social and environmental
standards.
e. Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive
health and responsible reproduction.
f. Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material
suf iciency in a inite world.
8. Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the
open exchange and wide application of the knowledge acquired.
a. Support international scienti ic and technical cooperation on
sustainability, with special attention to the needs of developing
nations.
b. Recognize and preserve the traditional knowledge and spiritual
wisdom in all cultures that contribute to environmental protection
and human well-being.
c. Ensure that information of vital importance to human health and
environmental protection, including genetic information, remains
available in the public domain.
III. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
9. Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental
imperative.
a. Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security,
uncontaminated soil, shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the
national and international resources required.
b. Empower every human being with the education and resources to
secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and
safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.
c. Recognize the ignored, protect the vulnerable, serve those who suffer,
and enable them to develop their capacities and to pursue their
aspirations.
10. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels
promote human development in an equitable and sustainable
manner.
a. Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and
among nations.
b. Enhance the intellectual, inancial, technical, and social resources of
developing nations, and relieve them of onerous international
debt.
c. Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use,
environmental protection, and progressive labor standards.
d. Require multinational corporations and international inancial
organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold
them accountable for the consequences of their activities.
11. Af irm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to
sustainable development and ensure universal access to
education, health care, and economic opportunity.
a. Secure the human rights of women and girls and end all violence
against them.
b. Promote the active participation of women in all aspects of
economic, political, civil, social, and cultural life as full and equal
partners, decision makers, leaders, and bene iciaries.
c. Strengthen families and ensure the safety and loving nurture of all
family members.
12. Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and
social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health,
and spiritual well-being, with special attention to the rights of
indigenous peoples and minorities.
a. Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race,
color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, language, and national,
ethnic or social origin.
b. Af irm the right of indigenous peoples to their spirituality,
 knowledge, lands and resources and to their related practice of
sustainable livelihoods.
c. Honor and support the young people of our communities, enabling
them to ful ill their essential role in creating sustainable societies.
d. Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritual
signi icance.
IV. DEMOCRACY, NONVIOLENCE, AND PEACE

13. Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide

transparency and accountability in governance, inclusive
participation in decision making, and access to justice.
a. Uphold the right of everyone to receive clear and timely information
on environmental matters and all development plans and activities
which are likely to affect them or in which they have an interest.
b. Support local, regional and global civil society, and promote the
meaningful participation of all interested individuals and
organizations in decision making.
c. Protect the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful
assembly, association, and dissent.
d. Institute effective and ef icient access to administrative and
independent judicial procedures, including remedies and redress
for environmental harm and the threat of such harm.
e. Eliminate corruption in all public and private institutions.
f. Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their
environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the
levels of government where they can be carried out most
effectively.
14. Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the
knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of
life.
a. Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational
opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to
sustainable development.
b. Promote the contribution of the arts and humanities as well as the
sciences in sustainability education.
c. Enhance the role of the mass media in raising awareness of
ecological and social challenges.
d. Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for
sustainable living.
15. Treat all living beings with respect and consideration.
a. Prevent cruelty to animals kept in human societies and protect them
from suffering.
b. Protect wild animals from methods of hunting, trapping, and ishing
that cause extreme, prolonged, or avoidable suffering.
c. Avoid or eliminate to the full extent possible the taking or
destruction of non-targeted species.
16. Promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace.
a. Encourage and support mutual understanding, solidarity, and
cooperation among all peoples and within and among nations.
b. Implement comprehensive strategies to prevent violent con lict and
use collaborative problem solving to manage and resolve
environmental con licts and other disputes.
c. Demilitarize national security systems to the level of a non-
provocative defense posture, and convert military resources to
peaceful purposes, including ecological restoration.
d. Eliminate nuclear, biological, and toxic weapons and other weapons
of mass destruction.
e. Ensure that the use of orbital and outer space supports
environmental protection and peace.
f. Recognize that peace is the wholeness created by right relationships
with oneself, other persons, other cultures, other life, Earth, and
the larger whole of which all are a part.
T W F
As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new
beginning. Such renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter
principles. To ful ill this promise, we must commit ourselves to adopt
and promote the values and objectives of the Charter.
This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of
global interdependence and universal responsibility. We must
imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life
locally, nationally, regionally, and globally. Our cultural diversity is a
precious heritage and different cultures will ind their own distinctive
ways to realize the vision. We must deepen and expand the global
dialogue that generated the Earth Charter, for we have much to learn
from the ongoing collaborative search for truth and wisdom.
Life often involves tensions between important values. This can
mean dif icult choices. However, we must ind ways to harmonize
diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good,
short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family,
organization, and community has a vital role to play. The arts, sciences,
religions, educational institutions, media, businesses,
nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called to
offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society,
and business is essential for effective governance.
In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the
world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, ful ill their
obligations under existing international agreements, and support the
implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international
legally binding instrument on environment and development.
Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new
reverence for life, the irm resolve to achieve sustainability, the
quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful
celebration of life.
Attribution: The Earth Charter is published by www.EarthCharter.org
and was placed into the public domain, without copyright to facilitate
broad distribution.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary
Akin, William E., Technocracy and the American Dream : The
Technocrat Movement 1900 - 1941, ed. (Berkeley [u.a.], 1977).
Moller, Dr. Paul, 2006. Holism and Evolution, College of European and
Regional Studies.
Technocracy, Inc., Technocracy Study Course (1934).
Adair, David, ‘The Technocrats 1919-1967: A Case Study of Con lict and
Change in a Social Movement’, (Vancouver, BC, 1970).
Technocracy : Technological Continental Design. (Ferndale, WA, 2001).
Technocracy, Technological Social Design. (Savannah, Ohio, 1975).
Total Conscription! Your Questions Answered. (New York, N.Y., 1942).
Hubbert, Marion King, Man-Hours and Distribution (New York, N.Y.,
1940).
Scott, Howard, [from old catalog], Technocracy. (New York, 1935).
Adamson, Martha, and Raymond I. Moore, Technocracy; Some
Questions Answered. (New York, 1934).
Gernsback, Hugo, Technocracy Review. (Mount Morris, Ill., 1933).
Technocracy, The Magazine of the New Deal. (Los Angeles, Calif.).
Ackerman, Frederick Lee, The Facts Behind Technocracy (New York
City, 1933).
Wilson, John Mills, Understanding Technocracy (San Diego, Calif.,
1933).
Holder, William J. [from old catalog], Simpli ied Technocracy (Salt Lake
City, 1933).
Scott, Howard, Technocracy: Science Vs. Chaos (Chicago, 1933).
Smalley, Jack., The Technocrats’ Magazine: Thirty Million Out of Work in
1933--or (Minneapolis, 1933).
Stabile, Donald R., Veblen and the Political Economy of Technocracy :
The Herald of Technological Revolution Developed an Ideology of
“scienti ic” Collectivism, ed. Don R. Stabile. y (In: The American Journal
of Economics and Sociology, Malden, Mass.: Wiley, 1987).
Davis, Charles H., The American Technocracy Movement : A Case Study
in the History of Economic Thought, ed. Charles H. Davis. y (1986).
Stabile, Donald., Prophets of Order : The Rise of the New Class,
Technocracy and Socialism in America, ed. Stabile. Donald (Boston
Mass., 1984).
Reed, John L., The Newest Whore of Babylon. The Emergence of
Technocracy. A Study of the Mechanization of Man, ed. John L. Reed. y
(Boston, 1975).
Technocracy Study Course : An Outline of Those Elements of Science
and Technology Essential to an Understanding of Our Social
Mechanism., ed. Inc. Technocracy (New York, NY, 1940).
Slocomb, Whitney Hart., How to Put Technocracy Into Practice, ed.
Whitney H. Slocomb. y (Los Angeles, Calif, 1933).
Soule, George., A Critique of Technocracy’s Five Main Points, ed. Soule.
George (In: For and Against Technocracy, New York: Business Bourse,
1933).
Slocomb, Whitney Hart., The Causes and Cure of This Depression, or,
How to Put Technocracy Into Practice, ed. Whitney Hart Slocomb. (Los
Angeles, Calif., 1933).
Rautenstrauch, Walter., Technocracy’s Views on Technological
Development and Social Change, ed. Rautenstrauch. alter (In: For and
Against Technocracy, New York: Business Bourse, 1933).
Laing, Graham Allan., and Charles Austin Beard, Towards Technocracy.
(Los Angeles: The Angelus Pr., 1933).
Elsner, Henry, Messianic Scientism Technocracy, 1919-1960 (xii, 398
leaves., 1963).
Arkright, Frank., The A B C of Technocracy : Based on Authorized
Material (New York and London, 1933).
The Technate of North America : The Minimum Area for the Maximum
Defense and Ef iciency. (New York, N.Y., 1941).
America Must Show the Way (New York, 1940).
The Energy Certi icate. (New York, 1940).
Scott, Howard., The Evolution of Statesmanship & Science and Society.
(New York, 1939).
Technocracy : Of icial Publication Technocracy, Inc. (New York, N.Y.,
1935).
Cline, Martha Adamson and Raymond I. Moore, Technocracy: Some
Questions Answered. (New York, 1934).
Zmavc, Ivan, Technocracy and Sociotechnics Dedicated With the
Author’s Compliments By the Institute for Technical Economy At
Masaryk Academy of Work. (Prague, 1934).
Chase, Stuart, Technocracy an Interpretation. (vol. The John Day
pamphlets. no. 19, New York, 1933).
Brandon, Joseph, Technocracy or Democracy Which Shall Govern Our
Industries (Hollis, N.Y., 1933). Parrish, Wayne W., An Outline of
Technocracy (New York, 1933).
Scott, Howard, Introduction to Technocracy (New York, 1933).
Smyth, William Henry, Technocracy Explained By Its Originator
(Berkeley, Calif., 1933).
Fisher, Irving, A Word About Technocracy. (New Haven, 1933).
Sachs, Hans, Technocracy in Education By Hans Sachs (San Francisco).
Director, Aaron., The Economies of Technocracy (Chicago, Ill., 1933).
The Technocrat. (Pismo Beach, Calif., 1935).
Technocracy : Total Conscription: A Victory Program. (New York, N.Y.,
1942).
Flying Wings for a Continental Offensive (New York, N.Y., 1943).
Continental Power for Continental Defense. (New York, N.Y., 1939).
Porter, Henry Alfred, Roosevelt and Technocracy (Los Angeles, Calif.,
1932).
Supporting
B, R., Root Merrill, E., and Technocracy Langan, Inc., I Am the Price
System and the Culture of Abundance (1945).
Bucchi, Massimiano, Beyond Technocracy : Science, Politics, and
Citizens (Dordrecht, New York, 2009).
Crawford, Peter H., Technocracy -- an American Dogma for the Machine
Age. (135 p., 1954).
Genoud, Christophe., Matthias Finger, and Maarten Arentsen, Energy
Regulation: Convergence Through Mutlilevel Technocracy, ed. Genoud
hristophe, Matthias Finger and Maarten Arentsen. (In: Reshaping
European Gas and Electricity Industries, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2004).
McDougall, Walter A., Technocracy and Statecraft in the Space Age. (In:
The Global History Reader, New York: Routledge, 2005).
Burris, Beverly H., Technocracy At Work, (Suny Series, the New
Inequalities, Albany, 1993).
Putt, Archibald., Putt’s Law & the Successful Technocrat : How to Win in
the Information Age (Hoboken, N.J., 2006).
Brown, William Glenn., The Dynamo & the Tree : My Twins and I
Journeying in a Technate in the Year 1981 (Hicksville, N.Y., 1977).
Stabile, Donald R., Veblen and the Political Economy of Technocracy :
The Herald of Technological Revolution Developed an Ideology of
“scienti ic” Collectivism, ed. Don R. Stabile. y (In: The American Journal
of Economics and Sociology, Malden, Mass.: Wiley, 1987).
Davis, Charles H., The American Technocracy Movement : A Case Study
in the History of Economic Thought, ed. Charles H. Davis. y (1986).
Fischer, Frank., Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise, ed. Fischer.
rank (Newbury Park, Calif. [u.a.], 1990).
Day, Richard B., Ronald Beiner, and Joseph Masciulli, Democratic Theory
and Technological Society, ed. by Richard B. Day. d. (Armonk, NY [u.a.],
1988).
Benard, Jean., From Political Bureaucracy to Economic Technocracy: A
Transfer of Property Rights in a Socialist Economy Under Inverse
Transition, eds. Jean, and Benard. (Vorträge, Reden Und Berichte //
Universität Des Saarlandes, vol. 7, Saarbrücken: Europa-Institut, 1991).
Freeman, John R., Competing Commitments : Technocracy and
Democracy in the Design of Monetary Institutions (In: International
Organization, Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
Sartori, Giovanni., Market, Capitalism, Planning and Technocracy. (In:
Markets, Hierarchies and Networks, London: Sage, 1998).
Centeno, Miguel Angel, The New Leviathan : The Dynamics and Limits
of Technocracy, (In: Theory and Society, Dordrecht : Springer, 1993).
Ashcroft, David., Technocracy : A Discussion (In: Science Policy and
Social Aspects of Science, Mons, 1979).
Simmons, Harry., System Dynamics and Technocracy (In: Futures,
Amsterdam : Elsevier, 1973).
Shils, Edward A., The Social Control of Technocracy (In: Can We Survive
Our Future, London [u.a.] : St. Martin`s Pr., 1972).
Scott, Howard., Technocracy’s Answer (In: Bingham : Alfred Mitchell,
Freeport, N.Y : Books for Libraries Press, 1971).
Bell, Daniel., The Post-Industrial Society : Technocracy and Politics (In:
Transactions of the World Congress of Sociology, Wechselnde
Verlagsorte, 1970).
Back, Edith B., Technocracy and the Ethic of Social Work (In: The Social
Service Review, Chicago, Ill.: Univ of Chicago Press, 1969).
Meynaud, Jean., and Paul. Barnes, Technocracy, Translated by Paul
Barnes. (Society Today and Tomorrow, London, 1968).
The Politics and Philosophy of Technocracy, ed. George Frederick. (In:
For and Against Technocracy, New York: Business Bourse, 1933).
Money, Debt, and Price Under Technocracy, ed. George Frederick. (In:
For and Against Technocracy, New York: Business Bourse, 1933).
An Examination Into Some of Technocracy’s Examples, ed. George
Frederick. (In: For and Against Technocracy, New York: Business
Bourse, 1933).
The Background of Technocracy, ed. George Frederick. (In: For and
Against Technocracy, New York: Business Bourse, 1933).
Frederick, Christine., The Psychology of Women Under Technocracy, ed.
Frederick. Christine (In: For and Against Technocracy, New York:
Business Bourse, 1933).
Doane, Robert R., Technocracy and the Maturity of the Chances (In: For
and Against Technocracy, New York: Business Bourse, 1933).
Deventer, John H. van., The Weakness in the Technocracy Case (In: For
and Against Technocracy, New York: Business Bourse, 1933).
Compton, Karl Taylor., Technology’s Answer to Technocracy, (In: For and
Against Technocracy, New York: Business Bourse, 1933).
Frederick, Justus George., What Are Technocracy’s Assertions (In: For
and Against Technocracy, New York: Business Bourse, 1933).
Holcomb, Hillman., Christian Technocracy. (Oakland, Calif., 1962).
Holcomb, Hillman., Gentiles Incorporated or International for
Technocracy (Oakland, Calif., 1961).
Pamphlets on Technocracy. (New York, etc., 1932).
A Continental Hydrology : A Continental Design for Flood and Erosion
Control, and Water for Power, Irrigation, Transportation, Recreation
and Climatic Modi ication (Rushland, PA, 1970).
Technocracy, a New Challenge to Labor and Education : Address to the
52nd Convention of the American Federation of Labor, Cincinnati, Ohio,
Nov. 23, 1932. (1932).
Murray, Alan Robert., and John Rodgers. King, The Facts About
Technocracy (Los Angeles, 1932).
Cromie, Robert James, Technocracy From the Viewpoint of an Editor
(Girard, Kan., 1933).
Total Conscription. (New York, N.Y., 1943).
Power for a Continent. (New York, N.Y., 1947).
Continentalism : The Mandate of Survival, (New York, 1947).
A Continental Hydrology, (Rushland, Pa., 1956).
Alchon, Guy, Technocratic Social Science and the Rise of Managed
Capitalism, 1910-1933 (ii, 280 leaves, 1985).
Technocracy : Technological Social Design, (Savannah, Ohio, 1976).
Carleton, G., Technology and Humanism; Some Exploratory Essays for
Our Time (Nashville, 1970). Technocracy Digest, (Vancouver, 1934).
The Northwest Technocrat, (Seattle, 1939).
Technocracy in Plain Terms : A Challenge and a Warning, (New York,
N.Y., 1939).
Anderson, Stuart., Technocracy Passes, (1933).
The North American Technocrat. (Ferndale, WA, 2002).
Frederick, J. George, For and Against Technocracy, a Symposium, (New
York, 1933).
Technocratic Trendevents. (Long Beach, Calif., 1950).
Bryson, Dennis Raymond., Lawrence K. Frank : Architect of Child
Development, Prophet of Bio- Technocracy / By Dennis Raymond
Bryson. (2 v. (v, 575 leaves), 1993).
Elsner, Henry., The Technocrats; Prophets of Automation. ([Syracuse,
N.Y.], 1967).
Wilson, J. M., Tomorrow (San Diego, 1932).
Blanshard, Paul, Technocracy and Socialism (New York, 1933).
Darcy, Sam., and Lincoln Steffens, A Marxist Exposure of the Fallacy of
Technocracy (San Francisco, 1930).
Mayers, Henry, The What, Why, Who, When, and How of Technocracy ;
Amazing Revelations of Foremost U. S. Engineers and Economists
Concerning Our Past Prosperity, Present Depression and Future
Freedom. (Los Angeles, Calif., 1932).
International
Andreas, Joel., Rise of the Red Engineers : The Cultural Revolution and
the Origins of China’s New Class (Stanford, Calif., 2009).
Silva, Patricio., In the Name of Reason : Technocrats and Politics in
Chile (University Park, Pa., 2008).
Elena, Eduardo., The Promise of Planning : Technocracy and Populism
in the Making of Peronist Argentina (In: Fascismo Y Antifascismo,
Peronismo Y Antiperonismo, Madrid : Iberoamericana, 2006).
Shiraishi, Takashi, Technocracy in Indonesia : A Preliminary Analysis
(Rieit Discussion Paper Series, vol. 06,008, Tokyo).
Shiraishi, Takashi., and P. N. Abinales, After the Crisis : Hegemony,
Technocracy and Governance in Southeast Asia (vol. Kyoto area studies
on Asia, v. 11, Kyoto Melbourne, Vic., 2005).
Mizuno, Hiromi, Science for the Empire : Scienti ic Nationalism in
Modern Japan (Stanford, Calif., 2009).
Radaelli, Claudio M., Technocracy in the European Union (Political
Dynamics of the Eu Series, London [u.a.], 2008).
Bell, Stephen, The New Technocracy : Monetary Governance and the
Reserve Bank of Australia (In: Economic Governance & Institutional
Dynamics, South Melbourne, Victoria [u.a.] : Oxford Univ. Press, 2002).
Björkman, James Warner, and Kuldeep Mathur, Policy, Technocracy and
Development : Human Capital Policies in the Netherlands and India
(New Delhi, 2002).
Silva, Patricio, Studying Technocracy in Chile : What Can be Learned
From the Mexican Case? (1996).
Dijkstra, A. Geske, Technocracy Questioned : Assessing Economic
Stabilisation in Nicaragua (1999).
Shapiro, Martin M., Deliberative, Independent Technocracy V.
Democratic Politics : Will the Globe Echo the E.U. (New York, NY, 2004).
Andersen, Svein S., and Tom R. Burns, Societal Decision-Making :
Democratic Challenges to State Technocracy : Confrontations Over
Nuclear, Hydro-Power and Petroleum Projects in Norway (Aldershot ;
Brook ield, USA, 1992).
Rowney, Don Karl., Transition to Technocracy : The Structural Origins of
the Soviet Administrative State (Studies in Soviet History and Society,
Ithaca, NY , 1989).
Sicat, Gerardo P., National Economic Management and Technocracy in
Developing Countries, ed. Gerardo P. Sicat. y (In: Economic Policy and
Development, Dover, Mass.: Auburn House, 1985).
Andrade, Luis A. de, Technocracy and Development : The Case of Minas
Gerais (1980).
de, Moraes, Martha Pimenta., The Controls of Technocracy : Seminar on
Technocracy and Its Controls in Developing Countries (August 1978).
Dubsky, Roman., Social Development, Social Policy, and Technocracy :
The Phillippine Experience (In: Philippine Journal of Public
Administration, Manila, 1981).
Mai, Manfred., On the Relevance of the Technocracy Debate : An Essay
on the Relationship Between Technology and Democracy. (In:
Governance and Legitimacy in a Globalized World, Baden-Baden :
Nomos, 2008).
Quick, Stephen A., Humanism or Technocracy? Zambia’s Farming Co-
Operatives 1965-1972. By Stephen a. Quick, (Zambian Papers, vol. No.
12, Manchester, 1978).
Moreira, Alves, Marcio., The Political Economy of the Brazilian
Technocracy, ed. Moreira Alves. Marcio (In: Berkeley Journal of
Sociology, Berkeley, Calif., 1974).
Mallet, Serge., Bureaucracy and Technocracy in the Socialist Countries
(European Socialist Thought, vol. 1, Nottingham, 1974).
Dimock, Marshall Edward, The Japanese Technocracy : Management
and Government in Japan (New York, 1968).
Krämer, Erich., Was Ist Technokratie (Berlin, 1933).
Coston, Henry., Les Technocrates Et La Synarchie ([Paris], 1962).
Andrade, Luis Aureliano Gama de., Technocracy and Development the
Case of Minas Gerais (xiii, 311 leaves., 1980).
Apter, David Ernest, Round Table on Technocracy and Its Controls :
With Special Reference to Developing Countries : Rio De Janeiro 25-27
August, 1978. ([S.l.], 1979).
Martins, Carlos Estevam, Tecnocracia E Capitalismo : A Política Dos
Técnicos No Brasil (São Paulo, 1974).
Malorny, Hans, Technokratie (Würzburg, 1937).
Druesne, Maurice., Les Problèmes Économiques Et La Technocratie
(Paris, 1933).
Carrillo, Alejandro., La Tecnocracia; Bosquejo De Una Nueva Teoría
Económico-Social. ([México?], 1934).
Baylis, Thomas A., The Technical Intelligentsia and the East German
Elite; Legitimacy and Social Change in Mature Communism (Berkeley,
1974).
Doorn, Jacobus Adrianus Antonius van, The Engineers and the Colonial
System Technocratic Tendencies in the Dutch East Indies (Rotterdam,
1982).
Bakken,, The Exemplary Society: Human Improvement, Social Control,
and the Dangers of Modernity in China (Oxford [England] New York,
2000).
Bauchard, Philippe, Les Technocrates Et Le Pouvoir, X-Crise, Synarchie,
C. G. T., Clubs (Paris, 1966).
Ascher, William Louis, Planners, Politics and Technocracy in Argentine
[Sic] and Chile ([New Haven], 1997).
Centeno, Miguel Angel, The New Cienti icos : Technocratic Politics in
Mexico 1970-1990 (2 v. (iv, 513 leaves), 1990).
Brun, Gérard, Technocrates Et Technocratie En France, 1918-1945
(Paris, 1985).
Silva, Patricio, State Capacity, Technocratic Insulation, and
Government-Business Relations in South Korea and Chile (vol. Nueva
serie FLACSO. Relaciones internacionales y militares, Santiago, Chile,
2000).
Dubsky, Roman., Technocracy and Development in the Philippines
(Diliman, Quezon City, 1993).
Website links
Technocracy Rising
www.TechnocracyRising.com
The August Forecast
www.AugustForecast.com
Freedom Advocates
www.FreedomAdvocates.org
The Post Sustainability Institute
www.PostSustainabilityInstitute.org
 INDEX
A
Affordable Care Act 112
Agenda 21 ix, 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, 204
Agriculture 93–94
Albright, Madeleine 58
Albright, Madeleine K. 120
Aldous Huxley xiii, 126, 180, 207
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation 120
Alliance for Redesigning Government 106
Allison, Graham 120
American Civil Liberties Union 117
American Humanist Association 181
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 111
Anderson, Robert O. 119
Ark of Hope 125
Armacost, Michael 58
Askew, Reubin O’D. 57
Aspen Institute 106, 119–120, 121, 126
Association of Bay Area Governments 198

B
Babbitt, Bruce 94
Baird, Zoe 120
Bank of New York Mellon 161
Barshefsky, Charlene 57
Battelle Memorial Institute 143, 148
Bellamy, Edward 16
Bernanke, Ben 58
Big Data 168–171
Bilderberg 48–49
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 92
Biotechnology 183
Blair, Dennis C. 172
Blumenthal, Michael 50, 74
Blumenthal, W. Michael 74
Bohemian Engineer. See Scott, Howard
Bonneville Power Administration 143
Borgese, Giuseppe 119
Brademas, John 120
BRAIN Initiative 184–185
British Humanist Associatio 181
Brock, William E. III 57
Brundtland Commission 87, 133
Brundtland, Gro Harlem 87, 133
Brzezinski, Zbigniew 40–41, 51–53, 63
Buchanan, Patrick 66
Buford, Bob 216
Bureau of Land Management 100, 137
Burns, Arthur 58
Bush, George H.W. 48, 56, 60, 63, 65, 172
Butler, Nicholas Murray 23

C
California Association of Councils of Government 198
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement 62
Carbon Currency 156–164
Carnegie Foundation 120
Carnegie-Mellon 70
Carter, Jimmy 45, 48, 50, 51, 53, 56, 65, 75, 88, 190, 201, 229
CCSS. See Common Core State Standards
Central Intelligence Agency 165
Chase Manhattan Bank 48, 55, 82, 119, 229, 234–236, 242
Cheney, Dick 56, 172
Chichilnisky, Graciela 162
China 28, 51, 52, 54, 150, 151, 201, 202, 204, 205, 262, 264
Christopher, Warren 58
Church, Frank 173
Clausen, A.W. 57
Clinton, Bill 56, 64, 75
Club of Rome 124, 159
Cognitive Science 183, 184
COGS. See Councils of Governments
Coleman, William T. Jr. 120
Colombo, Umberto 120
Columbia University 3, 9, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 36, 40–41, 48, 51, 124, 204
Committee on Technocracy 23
Common Core. See Common Core State Standards
Common Core State Standards 92, 108–114
Communitarianism 10, 209, 213, 214, 215
Comte, Auguste 4, 11
Influence on Technocracy 15
Conable, Barber 57
Congress, Irrelevance of 54
Convention on Biological Diversity 85
Convergence. See Converging Technologies
Converging Technologies 183–185
Cooper, Richard 58, 120
Council of Chief State School Officers 111
Council of the Americas, The 62
Council on Foreign Relations 48, 49, 59, 60, 71, 119, 205
Councils of Governments 89

D
Dam removal 94
Darwinism 11, 13, 20
Data fusion 174
David and Lucile Packard Foundation 120
Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 126
Department of Homeland Security 104, 165, 170, 174, 176
d’Estaing, Valery Giscard 60
Deutch, John 120
Director of National Intelligence, Office of the 170–172
Discourse Theory 130, 136
Dobson, Wendy K. 59, 70
Donovan, Hedley 49, 229, 240, 241, 243
Driscoll, Mark 213
Drucker Institute at Claremont College 216
Drucker, Peter 214
E
Eagleburger, Lawrence 58
Earth Charter 85, 122–128, 245, 253–254
Earth Charter Guidebook for Teachers 126
Earth Charter International Council 124
Eisenhower, Dwight D. 173
Energy Certificate 32, 156, 158, 159, 163
Energy Distribution Card 162. See also Energy Certificate
Entropy 81
Environmental Protection Agency 133
Eugenics 20, 101
European Union 5, 6, 60, 203, 204, 262
Executive Branch xiv, 54, 55, 58, 64, 73, 75, 104, 106, 108, 155, 167, 190, 192
Extropy Institute 182
F
Fabianism 14
Fascism iii, xiii, 13, 39
Fast Track. See Trade Promotion Authority
Federal Bureau of Investigation 165
Feder, Dr. Gottfried 37
Feinstein, Dianne 120
Ford Foundation 70, 106, 119–120, 122
Ford, Gerald 61
Framework Convention on Climate Change 88
Free Trade 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 134
Froman, Michael 58
Fuller, R. Buckminster 151
Functional Sequence 99–100
Fusion Centers 173–175

G
Gant, Henry 24
Gardner, Richard 43, 51–52, 63, 204
GATT Uruguay Round 62
General System Theory 215
George Orwell 207
German Technocratic Society 38
Germany 21, 28, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 150, 201, 205, 206
Global Biodiversity Assessment 85, 93
Global Energy Network Institute 151
Global Forum on Reinventing Government, The 103
Goldman Sachs 163
Goldwater, Barry 55
Gorbachev, Mikhail 123, 124
Gore, Albert 56, 65
Green Cross International 124
Green Economy
as defined by UNEP 78
currency of 156
Decoupling resources 79
examples of 91–95
GreenFaith 127
Greenspan, Alan 58
Gulf Oil Corporation 54
H
Haass, Richard 59, 70, 120
Habib, Philip 58
Haig, Alexander 58
Heck, Charles 47
Hills, Carla A. 57, 59, 63, 69, 93, 95
Hitler, Adolf 13, 34, 35, 36–40, 40, 54, 173, 201, 206
Holism 6–7
Holon. See Holism
Hoover Institution for War, Peace and Revolution 46
Hubbert, M. King 15, 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
Hubbert Peak Theory 159
Hubbert’s Peak. See Peak Oil Theory
Human Genome Project 181
Humanism 4, 116, 117, 119, 126, 182, 187, 201, 261, 263
Humanist Manifesto I 117
Humanist Manifesto II 118
Humanist Manifesto III 118, 119
Huntington, Samuel 74
Hutchins, Robert M. 119
Huxley, Aldous 126, 180
Huxley, Julian 180
Hybels, Bill 218, 219
I
IBM 55, 106, 144, 168
ICLEI 10, 198
IEEE Standards Association 153–156
Information Technology 183
Ingersol, Robert S. 120
Institutions for Defectives. See Eugenics
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 170
Interfaith Summit on Climate Change 127
Internet of Things 145
IPv6 145, 146
Isaacson, Walter 120

J
JPMorgan Chase 163
K
Kantor, Arnold 58
Kantor, Mickey 57
Kim, Jim Yong 57
Kirk, Ron 58
Kissinger, Henry 58, 63, 66, 120, 201, 236
Klein, Mark 166
Knight, William 33–35
Kobayashi, Yotaro 120
Koestler, Arthur 6
Kurzweil, Ray 181, 185, 186
Kyoto Protocol 85, 162, 163

L
Larry King Show 47
Leadership Network 216, 217, 219
League of Nations Library 82
Levin, Gerald M. 120
Lex mercatoria 132
Linowitz Commission 74, 75
Linowitz, Sol 74
Local Agenda 21 90
Local Governments for Sustainability. See ICLEI
M
Maurice Strong 122, 123, 124
McLaren, Brian 212
McNamara, Robert 57, 120
Megachurch 213, 215, 218
Mikhail Gorbachev 123, 124
Misprision 196, 197
Mondale, Walter 45, 49, 75
Monti, Mario 203
Moore, Gordon E. 186
Moore’s Law 186
More, Max 182
Vita-More, Natasha 182
Morgan Stanley 163

N
NAFTA. See North American Free Trade Agreement
Nanotechnology 183
Napolitano, Janet 174
National Governors Association 112
National Governors Association Center 111
National Performance Review 88–89, 101
National Science Foundation 183
National Security Agency 165, 166, 169, 191
National Socialists 37
Nazi Socialism 38, 39
NBIC. See Converging Technologies
Negroponte, John 172
Network of European Technocrats, The 159
Network of Things 145–148
New Christianity 7, 117
New International Economic Order 1, 9, 43, 48, 56, 57, 60, 63, 66, 76, 93, 121, 129, 201
New School. See New School For Social Research
New School For Social Research 4, 15, 21. See also Veblen, Thorstein
New World Order iii, xiii, 2, 32, 48, 53, 56, 124, 126. See New International Economic Order
NIEO. See New International Economic Order
Nixon, Richard 56, 58, 61, 156, 201
No Child Left Behind 108
North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation 134
North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation 134
North American Free Trade Agreement 60–76
North American Union 59, 60, 66, 68, 71, 72, 74
Nye, Joseph 120

O
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability 142
Operation Paperclip 39–40
Orwell, George 207
Our Common Future 87, 88, 89, 123

P
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 147
Packard, David 46
Paepcke, Walter 119
Papademos, Lukas 203
Pastor, Robert A. 59, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75
Trilateral Commission Operative 74–76
Peak Oil Theory 30. See also Hubbert, M. King
Perot, Ross 64–65
Peter Drucker 214, 215, 216, 217, 220
Peterson, Peter G. 74
Pew Charitable Trusts, 106
Population control 95
Porter, Harry A. 26
Portman, Rob 58
Positivism 11. See also Comte, Auguste
Posthuman 179, 187
President’s Council on Sustainable Development 89–90
Preston, Lewis 57
Principles of Scientific Management 20
Progressivism 12
Project Prism 165
Property Rights 94
Public-Private Partnerships 91, 106–107

R
Radio-Frequency IDentification (RFID) 145
Rautenstrauch, Walter 22, 23, 24, 25, 256
Reflexive Law 130–140
Reinventing Government 101
Reorienting education towards sustainable development 110
Rice, Condoleezza 120
Richardson, Elliot 74
Rio Declaration, The 85
Robinson, Mary 88
Rockefeller Brothers Fund 86, 120, 124
Rockefeller, David 40–41, 56, 60, 74
Rockefeller Foundation 70, 82, 83, 106, 119, 120
Rockefeller, John D. 41
Rockefeller, Nelson A. 56, 61, 62, 65, 86, 124
Rockefeller, Steven C. 86, 124, 125
Rockefeller University 185
Roosevelt, Franklin D. 27
Roth, William 106
Rubio, Luis 59, 70
Rule of Law xiii, 104, 115, 129, 137, 139, 205

S
Saddleback Church 218
Saint-Simon, Henri de 4, 117
Influence on Technocracy 14
San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area 137
San Pedro River, Arizona 135
Schwab, Susan 58
Scientific dictatorship xiii, 126, 187, 206, 207
Scientific Management 16. See also Taylor, Frederick
Scientific Method 4, 7, 12, 20, 77, 116, 119
Scientism 3, 8, 12, 13, 115, 116, 180, 187, 201, 202, 209, 212, 257
Scott, Howard 15, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 33, 35, 37, 68, 141, 151, 161, 203
Security and Prosperity Partnership 71, 72, 73, 75
Seed, Dr. Richard 187
Self-regulation 129
Shultz, George 58
Shultz, George P. 122
Singularity 185–188
Slater, Joseph E. 119
Smart Grid 141–153
Smart Growth 90
Smuts, Jan Christian 6
Smythe, W.H. 2
Snowden, Ed 165
Socialism iii, xiii, 13, 14, 33, 38, 39, 256, 262
Southwest Center for Biological Diversity 135, 137
Sovereignty, fiction of 42
Soviet of Technicians 22
Stanford University 46
Steinmetz, Charles 33–34
Strauss, Robert S. 57
Strong, Maurice 123
Sustainable America 90
Sustainable Development ix, 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, 214
Sutton, Antony C. 2, 45–47
Sweeney, John 106
Swing, William 121
Systems Theory 130

T
Talbot, Strobe 120
Taylor, Frederick 16, 20
Taylorism 16, 20, 21, 36. See also Taylor, Frederick
Technetronic Era 9, 40, 41, 42, 43, 54, 214, 231
Technical Alliance 22, 33–34
Technocracy
and the Third Reich 36
First public use of 2
Greek meaning 2
in China 201–202
in the European Union 203–204
Philosophical backdrop for 11
Requirements for 31, 77
Technocracy, Inc. 21, 25, 26, 27–39, 68, 81, 99, 101, 109, 143, 151, 158, 159, 162, 255, 257
Banned in Canada 35
Technocracy Study Course 28–30, 77, 81, 157
Teubner, Gunther 130
Three-legged stool docrtine 215
Time Magazine 49, 50, 55, 102, 202, 240, 241
Tonelson, Alan 67
Total Surveillance Society 165–178
Trade Promotion Authority 61–62
Transcendence 186
Transhumanism 3, 8, 13, 118, 179–188, 209, 211, 212, 221
Transhuman Manifesto 182
Trialogue (quarterly magazine) 48, 52, 53, 226, 239. See also Trilateral Commission
Trilateral Commission 9–10, 43–44, 190, 191
Entrenchment years (1980-2007) 56
Trilateral Observer Newsletter 46
Trilaterals Over Washington (Sutton & Wood) 2, 9, 46, 47, 51, 239
Blacklisted by B. Dalton Booksellers 47
Turner, Ted 122
Tzu, General Sun 189

U
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification 85
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 85
United Religions Initiative 121–122
Urban Renewal 91
U.S. Department of Energy 141, 148
U.S. Trade Representative 57

V
Vance, Cyrus 50, 58, 66
Veblen, Thorstein 15
New School For Social Research 15
Volker, Paul 58, 120

W
Warren, Rick 213, 218, 219
Wi-Fi Alliance 148
Willow Creek Association 218
With No Apologies (Goldwater, 1979) 55
Wolfenson, James 57
Wolfowitz, Paul 57
World Bank, The 57
World Council of Churches 126, 127
World Economic Forum, The 122, 153
World electric grid 152
World Trade Organization 63, 129
World Wildlife Fund 181
WTO. See World Trade Organization

Y
Yeutter, Clayton K. 57

Z
Zakaria, Fareed 120
Zedillo, Ernesto 88
Zoellick, Robert 57, 120
Zuckerman, Mortimer B. 120
For additional informaton and updates
www.TechnocracyRising.com