Exposing The “Digital ID Is A Human Right” Scam

 May 13, 2022 AuthorDerrick Broze

A major component of the Great Reset-Technocratic Agenda is the implementation of a worldwide digital identity scheme. One of the first steps to realize this goal is to convince the public that digital identity programs are a “human right” worth fighting for.

Why is the push for digital identity absolutely vital to the Technocrats visions?

ARTICLE

 

Technocracy: Tracing the Roots of ‘The Great Reset’

DHS/Fusion Centers Co-Opted To Spy On Patriots Concerned About Islam

WRITTEN BY: LEO HOHMANN MARCH 16, 2018

During the Obama years, several Muslim individuals were placed into high-level positions at the Department of Homeland Security and who were also formative in the creation of Fusion Centers all over the U.S. The stated purpose of the Fusion Center initiative was to deter terrorism, but later government studies showed a complete failure to live up to its original mission. Despite being publicly discredited, Fusion Centers are still in full operation today, and it seems that another purpose-for-existence has surfaced: To spy on citizen activists who are concerned about Islam. This is a must-read story. ⁃ TN Editor

 Brenda Arthur received an unexpected visit on March 8 that, one week later, leaves her feeling more than a little uneasy.

At her door that day was an officer with the West Virginia State Police. He wanted to know about her involvement in a Freedom of Information request regarding a local mosque.

Arthur, who will turn 67 this summer, serves as leader of the West Virginia chapter of ACT For America, whose mission is to educate Americans about the advancement of Islamic principles in Western societies.

READ THE ARTICLE AT TECHNOCRACY NEWS... 

Tennessee Bill Would Allow Customers to Opt Out of Smart Meters, Undermine Federal Program

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (Jan. 23, 2018) – A bill introduced in the Tennessee Senate would allow customers to opt out of installing “smart meter” technology on their homes and businesses without penalty. Passage of this bill would enable Tennesseans to protect their own privacy, and it would take a step toward blocking a federal program in effect.

Sen. Mark Green (R-Clarksville) introduced Senate Bill 1679 (SB1679) on Jan. 18. The legislation would ensure utility customers can easily opt-out of smart meter programs.

Smart meters monitor home energy usage in minute detail in real time. The devices transmit data to the utility company where it gets stored in databases. Anybody with access to the data can download it for analysts. Without specific criteria limiting access to the data, these devices create significant privacy issues. Smart meters can also be used to remotely limit power usage during peak hours.

SB1679 would prohibit utilities from installing a smart meter on a home or business without the customer’s written and signed consent. It would also prohibit utilities from punishing customers who refuse to install smart meters by discontinuing service or charging a fee. Under the proposed law, utilities could not charge a customer for removing an existing smart meter.

Privacy Concerns

The proliferation of smart meters creates significant privacy concerns. The data collected can tell anybody who holds it a great deal about what goes on inside a home. It can reveal when residents are at home, asleep or on vacation. It can also pinpoint “unusual” energy use, and could someday serve to help enforce “energy usage” regulations. The ACLU summarized the privacy issues surrounding smart meters in a recent report.

“The temptation to use the information that will be collected from customers for something other than managing electrical loads will be strong – as it has been for cell phone tracking data and GPS information. Police may want to know your general comings and goings or whether you’re growing marijuana in your basement under grow lights. Advertisers will want the information to sell you a new washing machine to replace the energy hog you got as a wedding present 20 years ago. Information flowing in a smart grid will become more and more ‘granular’ as the system develops.”

The privacy issues aren’t merely theoretical. According to information obtained by the California ACLU, utility companies in the state have disclosed information gathered by smart meters on thousands of customers. San Diego Gas and Electric alone disclosed data on more than 4,000 customers. The vast majority of disclosures were in response to subpoenas by government agencies “often in drug enforcement cases or efforts to find specific individuals,” according to SFGate.

“Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network watchdog group, said the sheer number of data disclosures made by SDG&E raised the possibility that government agencies wanted to sift through large amounts of data looking for patterns, rather than conducting targeted investigations.”

No Smart Meter, No Data

Refusing to allow a smart meter on your property is the only sure-fire way to ensure your energy use data won’t fall into the hands of government agents or private marketers, or end up stored in some kind of government database. Passage of SB1679 would make opting out a legal option for Tennesseans and give them control over their own privacy.

Impact on Federal Program

The federal government serves as a major source of funding for smart meters. A 2009 program through the U.S. Department of Energy distributed $4.5 billion for smart grid technology. The initial projects were expected to fund the installation of 1.8 million smart meters over three years.

The federal government lacks any constitutional authority to fund smart grid technology. The easiest way to nullify such programs is to simply not participate. SB1679 would make that possible. If enough states pass similar legislation, and enough people opt out, the program will go nowhere.

We’ve seen a similar opt-out movement undermining Common Core in New York. Opting out follows a strategy James Madison advised in Federalist #46. “Refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” provides a powerful means to fight back against government overreach. Such actions in multiple states would likely be effective in bringing down federal smart meter programs.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1679 had not been referred to a committee at the time of this report. Once it receives a committee assignment, it will need to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

LINK

---

Mike Maharrey

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center.He proudly resides
in the original home of the Principles of '98 - Kentucky.See his blog archive here and his article archive here.He is the
author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE

The Mind Of A Technocrat Is Rooted In The Religion Of Scientism

WRITTEN BY: PATRICK WOOD AUGUST 8, 2017

Scientism underlies both Technocracy and Transhumanism; the latter is to humanity as the former is to society. Without scientism, neither could be explained or justified. Scientism was first clearly defined by the French philosopher, Henri De Saint-Simon when he stated,

“A scientist, my dear friends, is a man who foresees; it is because science provides the means to predict that it is useful, and the scientists are superior to all other men.”

Saint-Simon is also considered the father of Technocracy that was later popularized and branded in the 1920s and 1930s by men such as Frederic Taylor, M. King Hubbard and Howard Scott.

It is a fatal error to equate Scientism with science. True science explores the natural world using the time-tested scientific method of repeated experimentation and validation. By comparison, Scientism is a speculative, metaphysical worldview about the nature and reality of the universe and man’s relation to it.

To a Technocrat, he or she is a hammer and every problem in the world is a nail. There is no problem in the universe that a Technocrat cannot solve, given enough time and resources. In the end, says the Technocrat, the solution will be the most efficient, balanced and reasoned solution possible, and there will be no dispute about it. In other words, the Technocrat’s solution always ends in the same position, that the “science is settled” and discussion is pointless. Dissenters are dismissed as ignorant, stupid and/or mean-spirited deniers.

Robert Putnam wrote in 1977 that there are six defining characteristics of a Technocrat:

1. Above all, the technocrat believes that technics must replace politics and defines his own role in apolitical terms… he has great confidence in the possibility of solving the problems of society by a scientific approach. 
2. The technocrat is skeptical and even hostile toward politicians and political institutions. 
3. The technocrat is fundamentally unsympathetic to the openness and equality of political democracy. 
4. The technocrat believes that social and political conflict is, at best misguided, and at worst, contrived
5. The technocrat rejects ideological or moralistic criteria, preferring to debate policy in practical, “pragmatic terms.”
6. The technocrat is strongly committed to technological progress and material productivity: he is less concerned about distributive questions of social justice. (Putnam, 1977, “Elite Transformation in Advanced Industrial Societies”, Comparative Political Studies, 10, pp. 285-387)

Nothing has changed.

When the economic system called Technocracy was formulated in the 1930s, all of the above was focused on solving the Great Depression and the impending failure of Capitalism and Free Enterprise. Their solution was the first attempt in the history of the world to create an alternative economic model using the scientific approach. By 1938, the Technocrats defined their own movement as “the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.” (The Technocrat, 1939)

Now, that was very far-reaching. It sought to control the entire social mechanism (the problem) to make and distribute goods and services to the entire population (the needed solution).

Again, nothing has change[d]: This is exactly what the UN’s Sustainable Development program seeks to do.

Saint-Simon proposed that the religious leadership of his day should be replaced by a priesthood of scientists and engineers, who would interpret the oracle of science in order to make declarations to society on necessary human action. Thus, science would be elevated to a state of unquestionable godhood, and would be worshiped by its followers as led by its priesthood. A modern type of such a high-priest would be Al Gore, who worships the god of “global warming science”.

The fifth column operating in the world today to subvert society is not comprised of socialists, communists or fascists, but is rather composed of Technocrats. The socialists, communists, fascists, and other political actors who inadvertently or purposefully help them are nothing more than ‘useful idiots’ who will suddenly, one day soon, be thrown under the bus and destroyed.

The ‘useful idiot’ observation is not speculative. Every revolution in history had sympathizers and operatives who met the same fate.

LINK 

Flashback: Rick Perry Tied To Agenda 21, Globalist Policies

WRITTEN BY: TERRY HALL MARCH 12, 2017

Terry Hall is a legendary Texan who successfully fought against George Bush’s globalist plan to create a North American Union, which was first to be realized by the “trans-Texas corridor”.  Rick Perry was Governor of Texas at the time, and he fought true conservatives and anti-Agenda 21 patriots tooth and nail to finish the corridor. Now Perry is Secretary of Energy, which is key to America’s infrastructure. ⁃ TN Editor

LINK TO ARTICLE IN TECHNOCRACY TRENDS AND NEWS 

https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2017/03/12/flashback-rick-perry-tied-to-agenda-21-globalist-policies/

The ‘Pseudo-Ethics’ Of Social Justice In Economics, Politics And Religion

WRITTEN BY: PATRICK WOOD AUGUST 3, 2016

Introduction

“Social Justice” is a phrase that you see everywhere today. Global Warming is all about social justice. The United Nations sponsors an annual World Day of Social Justice.  The Peaceful Uprising  website states that Climate Change Is A Social Justice Issue.

The U.N.’s own website states,

“For the United Nations, the pursuit of social justice for all is at the core of our global mission to promote development and human dignity. The adoption by the International Labour Organization of the Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization is just one recent example of the UN system’s commitment to social justice.” [emphasis added]

One Christian blogger recently wrote,

“As we strive for social justice and attempt to love our neighbors, are we relying on Christ, or are we relying on the military, political leaders, the government, church authorities, institutions, and abusive ideologies?” [emphasis added]

Social justice is a slippery bar of soap, but it surely sounds important, doesn’t it?

The term has a long history, definitive philosophy and uniformly disastrous results to any society who dared to embrace it. Plus, others have written extensively about it.

Spoiler ahead. According to famed Austrian economist F.A. Hayek, social justice nothing more than “pseudo-ethics” that “fails every test which a system of moral rules must satisfy in order to secure a peace and voluntary co-operation of free men.”¹

^{Read at Technocracy.News...} 

The Link between Extreme Environmentalism and Hard-Core Racism

The Link between Extreme Environmentalism and Hard-Core Racism

In my reading and writing on the history of eugenics (here, here, and here), I’ve begun to discern a common trait between the people called environmentalists and racists from a century ago.

They share a common outlook that is illiberal to its core. They imagine that a wise and powerful state can better plan a future for both nature and man. Both groups were panicked about unplanned progress, assuming it could only resort in degeneration, mongrelization, and destruction. They dreamed of a future in which they and not the unwashed masses would be in charge of how resources are used and how the human race propagates itself.

Madison Grant Saves the Trees and the White Race
Thanks to Mother Jones, my suspicions have been confirmed. An essay that pleads with the progressive movement to deal forthrightly with its own grim history of racism discusses the life and work of Madison Grant (1865-1937). This bushy-lipped aristocrat was the hero of the environmentalists in the Progressive Era. He saved the redwoods of California from logging. He was the guru behind the creation of national parks. He undertook the most aggressive efforts ever to preserve species from extinction. He was handsome, urbane, ridiculously well educated and well connected, and “the greatest conservationist who ever lived.”

Also, Grant wrote the book that Adolf Hitler described as “my Bible.” The book is the 1916 The Passing of the Great Race. A bestseller for many years, on the coffee tables in all the fashionable houses, it is quite possibly the crudest, crankiest, and most bloodthirsty racialist tract ever written; and there’s a lot of competition for that title. He championed segregation, exclusion, sterilization, immigration restrictions, a welfare state (to keep women from working), a high bar for professional employment (minimum wages), and aggressive central planning.

The Passing is a hard read actually. You will discover more than you ever want to about the inferiority of everyone but people like Grant himself. He sounded alarm bells about the coming “mongrelization” of the race, given the influx of Jews, Italians, Slavs, Africans, and every group other than the one that supposedly built civilization and made it great. Uncontrolled procreation is destined to ruin all things. Along the way, you find wicked ethnic caricatures covered by the gloss of science (the “Polish Jew, whose dwarf stature, peculiar mentality, and ruthless concentration on self interest are being engrafted upon the stock of the nation…”).

Racism Is an Ideology
Once you read this literature – it was almost impossible to avoid in the period between 1880 and 1935 or so – you begin to get the hang of it. The word racism – thrown around far too recklessly – exists as an accurate description of a special version of anti-liberal ideology. This isn’t about off-color jokes, prejudice, or even a preference for one’s own people. It’s a settled worldview that postulates race, far above any other concern, as the driving-force of history. It has a nightmare scenario of random race-mixing as a consequence of free-wheeling sexual association. And it has a utopia in mind: a great nation inhabited only by the purest stock. It is anti-capitalist, anti-individualist, and anti-liberal to the core, and it views government as savior.

From a scientific point of view, the racists are deeply confused. They find differences between people and posit irreconcilable conflict. If they grappled with what Carlyle called the “dismal science,” they would discover a more beautiful picture: the division of labor, the exchange economy, and free association lead people to find value and dignity in other human beings regardless of race, and to discover it is in everyone’s self interest to respect the equal freedom of others. For this reason, the historical trajectory of commercial society has always been toward integration, inclusion, equality, and liberalization. This is also why racism as an ideology ultimately turns against liberalism.  
Grant’s theory of government sums it all up:

Mankind emerged from savagery and barbarism under the leadership of selected individuals whose personal prowess, capacity, or wisdom gave them the right to lead and the power to compel obedience. Such leaders have always been a minute fraction of the whole, but as long as the tradition of their predominance persisted they were able to use the brute strength of the unthinking herd as part of their own force, and were able to direct at all the blind dynamic impulse of the slaves, peasants, or lower classes. Such a despot had an enormous power at his disposal which, if he were benevolent or even intelligent, could be used, and most frequently was used, for the general uplift of the race. Even those rulers who most abused this power put down with merciless rigor the antisocial elements, such as pirates, brigands, or anarchists, which impair the progress of a community, as disease or wounds cripple an individual.

This is a restatement of the views of Thomas Carlyle, the founding father of fascism, united with pseudoscience of racial uplift, resulting in a worldview that serves as a perfect foil to the liberal tradition of Thomas Jefferson through F.A. Hayek. Is the fabric of history woven by brilliant planners with power, or by the cooperative and decentralized choices of millions of individual actors? There’s no question where people like Carlyle, Grant, and the fascist tradition stand on this question. To their minds, a unplanned social order is chaos and decline in the making, and is saved only by strong men.

Redwoods and Nordics
Thanks to the profile in Mother Jones, I had the chance to read some of Grant’s work on the environment as well, which predates his race books and continued even after. What one finds here is the same spirit at work. There is a theory of environmental history during which the fittest of the fit survive (think of the majestic trees of the Redwood Parks) while the unfit are culled. What is going wrong? The demands of commercial society are prompting stupid people to destroy this evolution. There is an apocalyptic scenario of a coming doom if government doesn’t act. But there is also a solution: total government ownership and control under the firm hand of intelligent people like himself.

It’s truly bizarre. Replace the mighty redwoods with the white race and you have an identical paradigm unfolding here. The enemy is the same (too many inferior people doing random things in their own commercial interest). The fear-mongering is the same: we are doomed if this keeps up. The solution is the same: government needs to act with ferocity.

Mother Jones is to be commended for its conclusion: “it's worth remembering because the movement has always struggled with elitist and exclusionary elements in its ranks.”

But, listen, this isn’t about the grim intellectual personalities of some of these Progressive-Era monsters. This isn’t even a personal attack or exposé. This is a problem of a worldview that is anti-liberal at its core. Whether we are talking about environmental purity or racial hygiene, the loathing of freedom itself is the issue and the factor that unites greens, browns, and reds of all stripes.

Enemies of freedom come in many flavors. The deeper you look into this history, the more the flavors blend together. We tend to think of these varieties of authoritarianism as being opposed to each other. It is more correct to think of them as the inevitable splits within the same movement.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

---

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education and CLO of the startup Liberty.me. Author of five books, and many thousands of articles, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.  Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook. Email. Tweets by @jeffreyatucker

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

SOCIALIST TAKEOVER OF AMERICAN HEALTHCARE IS RIGHT ON TRACK WITH NO SPEED-BUMPS IN SIGHT:

...this is how to change that:

The "penalties" for "INDIVIDUALS" will be going UP & the "INCENTIVES" (via reverse psychology techniques) for BIG BUSINESS to DROP employees will be increasing.

Please understand: The GOP is having a hard time seeing the LONG TERM (Big Picture) goals - ObamaCare = Socialized, single payer system.

To get that system, they (Liberals) eventually need all big business to DROP their employees’ [insurance] so that the employees run mostly to the cheaper, Government plans ...their key = use reverse psychology from every angle to trick big business and 'normal Joe' that it is NOT a Progressive/Liberal (redesigned) plan (since 2002).

The same 'principle' applies to Hospitals, Independent Provider Clinics & Private Insurance Companies. Remember, the end game in a Socialized Nation is to ELIMINATE most (90%) of INDEPENDENT Physician Clinics/Groups, 1/2 of Hospitals (only want one (1) per "region" like in Socialized Nations (Control), and 85% of all current "Private" Insurance companies; the Government will only want 3-4 major Insurance Companies to survive by 2020 & to act as Government Administrators/accountants (like Humana & DOD today).

Finally:

Remember also what I have been teaching now for 7 years:

The "FOUR PILLARS OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE":

1. Mandated EMR use by every "provider" in the nation; this allows Socialists into every "provider office to regulate, control, mandate, penalize and dictate their terms. It was NEVER about patient care improvement.

2. The overuse of "EXTENDERS" such as NPs/PAs to 'provide for the masses'; at a DEEP cost to quality (being hidden to reporters by FEDS and DOD/VA)

3. The NEW institution of the coding/billing system know as "ICD 10" which is now starting. It uses convoluted coding to slowly pay providers less and less, eliminate those not playing the "Socialist game" and is a weapon via the use of FEDERAL RACK AUDITS on providers (already dramatically increasing ...hidden from reporters).

4. The Patient Centered Medical Home" (aka: ACO): This allows more integrated success of 1-3 (above) by combining them in a FED SUBSIDIZED way for CONTROL under fewer roofs across America.

...I would love to explain to a nationwide or Congressional group if invited.

Sincerely,

(PLEASE SHARE/FORWARD TO CONSERVATIVE VIP'S)

James

http://lastresistance.com/6306/many-obamacare-premium-holders-must-switch-plans-pay-substantially-2015/

Dr. James Pollock, Maj., USAF (Ret), SOCOM, OIF VET X 2, Wounded Warrior & National Advocate, Proud Christian Patriot.

pollock.james@sbcglobal.net

Miami, FL

Robin Eubanks: A gentle voice with a powerful message.

Once again we are compelled to point readers to the body of work from author Robin Eubanks. Her brilliant blog augments her fabulous book, Credentialed to Destroy: How and Why Education Became a Weapon.

This week Robin starts a analysis of the systemic (and intentional) breakdown of traditional education to pave the way for sustainable development. The role of Common Core State Standards is evaluated. You would be well served to carve some time from your busy schedule to sit undisturbed while enjoying the well-written stream of this author’s considerable thoughts. She will strike a chord in knowledgeable readers with every paragraph.

This page (WWW.M912TC.COM) features a direct link to Robin’s blog posts in the right-hand column, under “INVISIBLE SERFS COLLAR.”

To sample this episode, she writes,

Earlier in the week the IPCC, the UN-affiliated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released its Working Group II Summary For Policy-Makers, http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf with its language on pages 22-23 about Effective Adaptation. Suddenly, the discussion was not about science in the physical sense. We were talking about education and new forms of governance and what is called systems science and no one was talking about waiting to see what happened in the physical world. I recognized the crucial importance of this language about adaptation and immediately put on my Deerstalker Hat and turned on my printer to collect more proof. That has turned the last few days into a whirlwind of in-motion plans, with cites to many of the same ed schemers we have been so horrified by–both in my book when I explained constructivism over the decades, or on this blog as we explored the cybernetic theory of control over human behavior.

Not easy reading, but quite satisfying. Enjoy!

jjm

Technorati Tags: common core,education,Eubanks

10 Reasons to Avoid Regional Plans #tcot

10 Reasons to Avoid Regional Plans

by John Anthony | Feb. 06, 2013

Planning is not a one-size-fits-all exercise. Yet, that is exactly what regional plans attempt, while gradually silencing local officials and the public.

Here are 10 reasons to avoid implementing regional plans and councils. Cleaner Greener NY [1], also called the Capital Region Sustainability Plan [2], is a model of why community members and local public officials must work together and say “NO” to regionalization and regional planning.

See how many apply to your region’s proposal.

1. Planners gain miniscule community participation when forming the regions, the plans or the councils

There over 1 million residents in the proposed Capital Region Sustainability Plan (CRSP). Despite claims of “stakeholder engagement” (CRSP p26), less than 300 participated in planners’ workshops. In CRSP surveys, only 96 people, or less than .0001 percent of residents participated. (CRSP Appendix 16, p11)

2. Plans are prepackaged and do not represent unique community needs.

In spite of claims to the contrary, most plans encompass the same government sponsored top-down “livability” control features. CRSP includes the same “livable communities” (p99), fewer vehicle miles traveled (p128), and increased compact living (p105) as most regional plans. Cleaner Greener NY (CGNY) further promises the government and non-governmental organization pushed (NGO) standbys of virtually every plan: confiscation of open spaces (p75), forced environmental justice (p58), hi-speed rails (p63), and dilution of privately controlled farmland interests through conservation easements (p90).

3. Plans do not protect individual property rights.

Few regional plans mention the potential individual property rights infringements, tax increases or loss of potential wealth accumulation inherent in most proposals. None offers any method for protection against such losses. The CRSP contains no enforceable landowner protections.

READ THE REST of the article on Sustainable Freedom Lab...

The Big Picture

*|INSTAPAPER:|*
When the monetary system collapses, who will be holding the "real" value?

If you are still confused about how "smart meters" fit in with the idea of a "one-world government," and a push for "energy credits," we invite you to view this man's view of current events. The lecture is well worth your time, but please start it, and if you are not engaged after a few minutes, just stop the play and continue with your life... for now.

Watch this highly researched and shocking explanation of SMART Meters and how they fit into "Technocracy."  Patrick Wood explains at the 2011 Eagle Forum Conference in Santa Rosa, CA. [8-27-11]

---

---

The latest article from Tom DeWeese confirms the scope of these types of "plans" for you future and for the governance of world events. Your elected representative refuse to hear these facts, even though they are openly published by "reputable" organizations.

If you want some more information on Smart Meters, download your "opt-out" letter template HERE and examine the issue at Freedom Advocates, or Sustainable Freedom Lab.