A Brave New World of Scientific and Medical Tyranny

A Brave New World of Scientific and Medical Tyranny

March 26, 2020 – History shows us that the elites have long been discussing, planning and working toward a “new world order.” There have been many theories about how this new world order would come about and what it might look like. We can examine how countries around the world have been using the Coronavirus so-called “pandemic” to consolidate power and control. The globally coordinated response to the event, as well as the “simulations” that occurred prior to the event, all seem to indicate at the very least that this was planned for extensively, if indeed it wasn’t carried out by the elites themselves. My recent article “A Smart Virus” looks at one of these simulations.

Rockefeller Foundation

Similar to the Gates Foundations Event 201 planning, in 2010 the Rockefeller Foundation produced a report entitled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” that looked at a global pandemic and how it could “trigger” a police state.

An examination of the contents of the report is alarming, especially when we compare them to the coordinated response of most countries.

This “Scenarios” report literally predicted exactly how the Chinese government would respond. Perhaps more precisely, they did not predict, they knew. Reading this 10-year-old report in light of current global discussions should send a chill down the spine of every ordinary citizen. These are the blueprints for a global fascist police state.

According to investigative journalist Helen Buyniski of Global Research:

But few are aware that the epidemic playing out in China and two dozen other countries, including the US, is unfolding in line with a decade-old simulation titled ‘Lock Step’ devised by the Rockefeller Foundation in conjunction with the Global Business Network. The scenario, one of four included in a publication called ‘Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development’ in 2010, describes a coronavirus-like pandemic that becomes the trigger for the imposition of police-state controls on movement, economy, and other areas of society.

The Lock Step scenario describes ‘a world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.’ In ‘2012’ (i.e. two years after the report’s publication), an ‘extremely virulent and deadly’ strain of influenza originating with wild geese brings the world to its knees, infecting 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million people in just seven months – ‘the majority of them healthy young adults.’ It devastates global economies and ruptures international trade. But not everyone, the Rockefeller Foundation makes clear, is hit equally.

Countries of Africa, southeast Asia, and central America suffer the worst ‘in the absence of official containment protocols’ – it wouldn’t be the Rockefeller Foundation if someone wasn’t licking their lips at the thought of a mass die-off in the Global South – but western ‘democracies’ also pay the ultimate price. ‘The United States’ initial policy of ‘strongly discouraging’ citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the US but across borders,’ the report warns. But remove such obstacles as ‘individual rights’ and you have a recipe for surviving, even thriving in the event of a pandemic, the Foundation gushes. 

This global power-grab is facilitated by a frightened citizenry who ‘willingly gave up some of their sovereignty – and their privacy – to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability…tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight.’ Everything from tighter biometric identification to stricter industrial regulation is welcomed with open arms. It takes over a decade for people to ‘grow weary’ of the authoritarian controls imposed in the wake of the pandemic, and hints that even the civil unrest that ultimately manifests is focused on the developed world. After all, a popular uprising in the technocratic police state envisioned by the simulation would be all but impossible – as it will be in real life once 5G makes real-time total surveillance of all cities a reality. – Global Research

Indeed there are some who would gladly turn over their rights and freedoms in exchange for “government assistance” and something akin to a universal basic income. The agenda becomes crystal clear if we look back at the beliefs of the so-called elites of recent past, in their own words:

Select Quotes

This should leave no doubt that indeed these international elites do work together and collude behind the scenes to the detriment of the vast majority of the world.

Aldous Huxley

Twentieth century novelist Aldous Huxley foresaw the modern American society when he was speaking and warning about this in the late 1950s.

The Modern Man dissects one of Huxley’s most famous interviews that he gave to Mike Wallace for ABC Television in 1958. Some of the observations that Huxley makes are still very relevant to us today:

Rather than being some ‘conspiracy theory’ (which, incidentally is a CIA-created code word to discredit people), the ideas of Huxley instead appeal to man’s often sociopathic lust for power and control, which is the force driving today’s Anglo-American cultural Matrix. Huxley talks about this idea: I don’t think there are any sinister persons deliberately trying to rob people of their freedom, but I do think, first of all, that there are a number of impersonal forces which are pushing in the direction of less and less freedom, and I also think that there are a number of technological devices which anybody who wishes to use can use to accelerate this process of going away from freedom, of imposing control.

Huxley foresaw the bureaucratic, authoritarian, micromanaging government the United States now lives under. He also foresaw media becoming propagandized and life becoming micromanaged by over-regulation. ‘Another force which I think is very strongly operative in this country is the force of what may be called of over-organization. As technology becomes more and more complicated, it becomes necessary to have more and more elaborate organizations, more hierarchical organizations, and incidentally the advance of technology is being accompanied by an advance in the science of organization. It’s now possible to make organizations on a larger scale than it was ever possible before, and so that you have more and more people living their lives out as subordinates in these hierarchical systems controlled by bureaucracy, either the bureaucracies of big businesses or the bureaucracies of big government.’ 

Huxley knew that having an educated populace was not insurance against brainwashing by propaganda methods. In America, these methods were perfected by Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud. Bernays invented the principle of using corporate and government propaganda to ‘engineer consent’ by shaping the thoughts, values, and responses of the masses. Bernays proved those who create knowledge and propaganda rule over the rest of society. Huxley explains how Hitler was able to do this before the days of television, using the then newly created tool of radio. 

Just as Huxley predicted, higher levels of state sponsored education have not prevented Americans from being duped by their leaders. Advancing technology has further imperiled the principles of freedom in the 21st century. It all started with television, but has advanced to smaller and smaller devices and progressed to the goal of microchipping the entire population with RFID chips, rendering them subservient to financial interests and the state. Huxley goes on, proving that not all progress is good progress when it is hijacked by an elite who want nothing but pure power. – The Modern Man

Huxley was able to have such incredible insight perhaps because his own family was intimately involved in the eugenics movement. Author Joanne Woiak argues in her research paper “Designing a Brave New World: Eugenics, Politics and Fiction” that Huxley wasn’t necessarily the progressive humanitarian as largely portrayed. She claims, there are many nuanced ways to read Brave New World, and what the purpose of the novel is. Joanne thinks that the book may in fact have been a plan for reforming society.

“A plan for reforming society.” Indeed if you look deeper you can see some of the eugenics and elitist themes.

A look at some of the eugenics and behavioral conditioning themes in Brave New World can be found here.

Engineering Societal Change

Re-thinking the true purpose of Huxley’s novel Brave New World makes one question the entire genre of science fiction, exposing the ease of its use to condition us into desiring new technology while disregarding the underlying vulnerabilities to the public. Key purpose is concealing the wider agenda being rolled out. Prime example: the 5G bill President Trump quietly signed into law during the Coronavirus chaos.

Carl Teichrib, editor in chief of Forcing Change magazine outlines this in his multi-part series on the technocracy. In part one, entitled ‘Technocracy and Transformation” he outlines exactly how these scientific advancements have been used against us:

‘Rugged individualism must go… The individual must subordinate himself to the community…’ – Graham A. Laing.

Those disturbing words didn’t spring out of Nazi Germany, Benito’s fascist Italy, or Stalin’s heavy-handed Soviet Union – although the text was common to that era. Rather, the idea that ‘individualism must go’ was the language of a very American movement, one that rapidly spread during the 1930s. From Columbia University to newspapers coast-to-coast, Technocracy was the buzzword for a new way of organizing humanity.

Mention ‘Technocracy’ today and a mix of responses emerge. ‘It’s in a lot science fiction books,’ explained one younger friend. ‘It’s a model for a utopian world run by technology.’

An older gentleman, a product of the 1940s, laughed when I mentioned the word; ‘It was a crack-pot idea with a cult following. Thankfully it died long ago.’

Another friend who was a child during the Great Depression remembers hearing about it at the kitchen table, and seeing Technocracy literature in the house.

Technocracy was all of the above: a utopian dream, a cult-like movement, and a concept that captured the public’s attention. But it was and is much more; it’s the prime motivator. Today, the fingerprints of Technocracy are deeply impressed upon the political, economic, military, social and spiritual landscape. There isn’t anything that Technocracy hasn’t touched, chiefly because as a type of meta-philosophy, it rests on the most basic principle of human rebellion: By pursuing god-like illumination, Man can become as God.

Man, not God, is the ultimate engineer of human destiny – therefore, Man is God. Technocracy represents the pinnacle of Man’s quest for self-deification: The perfectibility of Man through the thoughts of his mind and the subsequent works of his hands. It’s the cosmic taunt, stemming from the most ancient of days. What God can do, Man can do. The Garden of Eden will be remade.

At the personal level, the first Techno-fingerprint came to view in 2009. And after seeing it, I couldn’t believe I had somehow overlooked Technocracy in my past research. Ironically, I had published many articles touching on the subject, including a well-circulated piece in 2004 titled ‘Social Engineering for Global Change.’ Yet I hadn’t realized that a specialized meta-movement existed that gave energy to the changes being described. I had chocked it up to ‘globalism’ and ‘world citizenship,’ which wasn’t inaccurate. But I had missed a bigger picture.

Two quotes immediately come to mind from that 2004 ‘Social Engineering’ article…

…Consider this: In 2006, the UK’s Centre for Sustainable Energy suggested citizens be granted a CO2-credit account, ‘based on a carbon credit card debited whenever carbon is consumed.’

‘Whenever carbon is consumed’ translates to whenever energy is used. The implications are staggering.

And then the telephone rang.

‘Carl, the idea of an energy currency isn’t new… I’ve traced it back to the 1930s, to a movement called Technocracy.’ Pat Wood, a friend and research associate (www.augustreview.com), had been likewise digging into the development of a carbon economy. ‘During the Great Depression this group was lobbying to replace the price-based system with a new economic order. This was to be done by substituting physical money for energy certificates.’

Months before Pat had asked what I knew of Technocracy. The word had rattled around in the back of my mind in that vaguely familiar, can’t-put-my-finger-on-it kind of way, but I didn’t grasp its significance. Now I was paying attention.

Technocracy, it turned out, was far more than a science fiction plot. – Forcing Change Magazine

The use of science and technology to transform and control society is long in the making. Pay attention to policy proposals in the aftermath of the Coronavirus “pandemic.” We are already hearing talk of a “digital dollar” and we have seen Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) attempt to sneak in a “Green New Deal.”

The Technocrats “Great Work”

The elites and technocrats often use alchemy symbols and terminology to describe their ancient plans to transform and dominate the world. The brotherhood goes all the way back to the days of Mystery Babylon and their “great work of the ages” that will usher in their new world order. Forcing Changes Mazagine describes the modern manifestations of this ancient brotherhood:

Society from the 1880s to the 1940s witnessed a technical/scientific leap of mind-bending proportions. All one has to do is consider the jump from horse-and-buggy to human flight, and from coal-oil lamps to the electric light bulb. Today we’re still enamored with technology, but that earlier period had a fresh vibrancy; engineering marvels that we now take for granted were changing history.

This excitement was evident in the great World Fairs and expositions of Paris, Brussels, St. Louis and Chicago, where inventions were unveiled to the waiting eyes of the world. It was a time where science and engineering merged with the theatrical, creating a sub-culture of show inventors. These fairs provided incredible entertainment, and they fueled society with anticipation for the technically marvelous and great change. One writer, comparing the Paris fair of 1900 with the 1893 Columbian Exposition, tells us;

‘In these seven years man had translated himself into a new universe which had no common scale of measurement with the old.’ (If only he could have seen 100 years into the future!)

Momentum for technological progress was further demonstrated through industrial research laboratories and the scores of scientific facilities that sprang into existence. Consider the following: In 1920, America had some 300 research-based science and industrial labs, by 1940 it had more than 3400.Universities, governments, and bankers jumped on board, as research and development was both costly…and very lucrative.

The need for highly skilled workers grew exponentially, and a multitude of engineering and technical associations were formed during those early decades, both in the United States and abroad. Universities created specialized departments that acted as nurseries for ‘progressive’ ideas: Science found itself married to the new concept of socialism, for this was viewed as an ‘engineering-scientific approach to civilization.’ 

Equity and solidarity could be fostered and managed through a planned economy, and a planned economy meant a designed community. Finally, planning boards and advisory councils were formed, bringing an ever-widening stream of experts into the halls of government. It was the birth of a growth industry that bridged science, economics, and the weight of law. 

Germany, Britain, France, America and Russia all witnessed this ascendency of technical influence, and each country experienced diverse outgrowths of Saint-Simon’s worldview. In the United States a new power-base emerged: philanthropic foundations.

Major tax-exempt foundations were, and still are, indispensable tools for cultural transformation, giving academic and government leaders access to vast sums of private wealth earmarked for social change. The Carnegie and Rockefeller groups, and their different agencies, are particularly noted for their work in promoting internationalism.

The 1954 Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations, along with the final Reece Committee reports, noted that these organizations have historically focused on ‘social engineering’ and ‘techniques of control.’ According to the Dodd Report, these groups and their social scientists tend towards the control of human behavior, international planning, centralization of power, and the substituting of individual freedom with groupthink. 

Both the Carnegie and Rockefeller groups came to fruition before World War I. Andrew Carnegie’s pet project, one that dovetailed with his Endowment For International Peace, was the creation of the Peace Palace at The Hague. Carnegie called it a ‘Holy Temple of Peace,’ and the doors officially opened in August 1913. 

It was a grand vision, and Carnegie had grand dollars to see his Temple built. Hendrik Andersen wasn’t so fortunate. Far fewer people know of Hendrik C. Andersen, but what he proposed demonstrated the level of excitement in human advancement felt at the turn of the century. Calling for an ‘International Society for the Creation of a World-Centre,’ Hendrik drew up plans for a global city. Gardens, towers, and temples would be built, and the world would centralize around Man’s achievements. – Forcing Change Magazine

This is all about domination and control by a small group of elites who view themselves to be above the rest of us. They believe that they are superior to the rest of us, and therefore should be allowed to rule over us and make decisions for us. Central planning is the communist technocratic endgame — a society completely organized, run and regulated by technology or Artificial Intelligence (AI), with a cabal of elites ruling over us.

Using Scientific Technique to Dominate the Masses

When we look at the writings of H.G. Wells, Arthur C. Clark, or Bertrand Russell we can begin to see how this scientific knowledge will be hoarded by the ruling class and used to coerce and manipulate the masses. In his book “The Scientific Outlook” Bertrand Russell describes exactly this, and the mindset of the ruling class. Researcher Brent Jessop has compiled some of this information into a report.

Conclusion

The Coronavirus “pandemic” is clearly something that is being used by the ruling class of the nations to crack down on their respective citizens and flex their authority. As we have seen, the agenda for a technologically controlled and rigidly regulated and monitored society has long been in the plans of our ruling class. They have sought to force these “societal changes” incrementally in a process called “boiling the frog” which refers to a live frog in a pot of water who doesn’t realize the heat is on and that he is being slowly killed until it’s too late. Forced quarantine and lockdowns, ID checkpoints, mandatory vaccines, etc are all on the table right now.

As we have shown, the Great Depression was planned. It was a controlled demolition of the economy while at the same time they had people like Huxley and Russell making things like technocracy and a scientific society cool and intellectual. They popularized this by using mass psychology, popular culture and science fiction. They plan to use this “crisis” to usher in this technocratic utopia. The decades of their “great work” can now be brought to fruition, as long as the masses are too distracted to oppose it.

See a spelling or grammar error? Let us know! Highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of