Elon Musk vs the Marxists: A Very Strange Development

NY Times Caption: Elon Musk has not helped Tesla’s stock price by turning his bid to buy Twitter into a financial soap opera.

May 22, 2022


NY Times:


Tesla’s Aura Dims as Its Plunging Stock Highlights the Risks It Faces
*

How Elon Musk Winged It With Twitter, and Everything Else

*

Elon Musk Left a South Africa That Was Rife With Misinformation and White Privilege

*

The Problem With Elon Musk’s Vision of Tesla’s Autopilot Future

*

Piecing Together the Messages of Elon Musk

*

The Allegations Against Musk



Elon Musk — that mysterious mogul who owes his entire “richest-man-in-the-world” fortune to —

1. Exploitation of the Global Warming / Climate Change  HOAX
2. Unlimited positive free publicity from the Globalist media
3. Never-ending government contracts, mandates and subsidies associated with his companies (SpaceX, Tesla, Solar City, Boring, Neuralink)

— 
is now at war with the “elites” who made him and the activist radicals who once admired him. His tweets — amplified by countless millions of fanboys — are rocking the foundations of Libtardia even more so than Trump’s ever did because, in Musk’s case, his brutal and unremitting attacks on the Left are coming from a politically left-leaning “moderate” — not a “far right extremist.”

Musk — though probably hurting his business in the process — is making it safe for the mushy middle to turn against the Demonrat Party; and the sudden vicious counter attacks by pinko press against Musk and his Tesla company  only serve to expose their “mainstream media” bias even more. This is truly a delightful development that we could never have anticipated.

The questions remain, on Musk:

“Is Musk a “White Hat” now? Was he a sleeper all along? Is he faking it? Or is he a “Gray Hat” now — meaning, someone who — either for money or under duress — was flipped from Black to White by the White Hats?

The Mystery of Musk just gets murkier and murkier.”

Let’s examine this matter further.

Musk’s “tweets” are even mightier than Trump’s used to be — and he is killing the Democrats with them on many different issues. (((They))) never saw this one coming either.

In November & December of 2021  — at a time when Tesla stocks were still rising and rising — Musk — or shall we say “Musk” — sold off an eye-popping $16 Billion worth of Tesla shares. In April of this year, an additional $8.5 billion was sold — ostensibly to help buy Twitter. Just before Elon began his late 2021 selling spree, his equally shady younger brother, Kimbal Musksold off $109 Million. Eight months earlier, Kimbal had sold $25,000,000 worth. Since the 2021 sell-offs, Tesla stock has plunged from its November high of $1,208 down to $663 as of today! Nice “pump & dump” there, Elon — or “Elon.”

Not only did the Musk boys avert big personal losses, but Elon’s shift to the “far right” — a move that has already killed the favorable free publicity which created him and is now hammering down Tesla stock even further — is sure to hurt sales as many goofy global warmists will now buy their electric cars from BMW or Mercedes. What’s going on here?

We should all reject, out of hand, any consideration of the possibility that Murky Musk, or “Musk,” is now a morally motivated adopted American patriot for whom noblesse oblige outweighs profits. That characterization may work for his fawning fanboys, but to a seasoned analyst of these slimy characters, any such naive notion is laughable. And we may also now rule out the aforementioned option that he is faking his sudden rightward tilt as part of a Deep State psyop. He’s gone waaay too “far right” on too many issues by now. He’s even mentioning “red pills” and promoting the John Durham investigation of Q fame! Deductively speaking, that leaves us with only three options:

1. Musk is a self-serving, money & fame addicted, long term sleeper recruited by the White Hats a long time ago and secretly working for them all along.
2. The White Hats, in recent years, made crooked Musk an offer he couldn’t refuse — specifically this: “Work for us and let us access some of your billions — or die in Gitmo!”
3. The real Musk — like the real Biden, the real Killary, the real Fauci et al. — was disappeared & deep faked, his fortune commandeered, and his mighty twitter account taken over.

* Editor’s Note: Musk isn’t the only character to suddenly and surprisingly start attacking liberals and/or sounding conciliatory toward Trump. In recent months, we have noticed examples of this growing phenomenon with extreme Left TV hosts Bill Maher & Trevor Noah, race-baiter extraordinaire Al Sharpton, and ultra-libtard “intellectual” guru, Noam Chomksy.

It’s a vexing riddle — with each of the three possibilities sounding “crazier” than the other; and yet, it must be one of those options. But whichever way one leans as to the answer, the multiple-choice question itself represents a win-win-win for our side — a BIG win. Hence, the hateful Fake News barrage now being unloaded against “the world’s richest man” — a now out-of-control Frankenstein monster (or Frankenstein Ghost?) which (((they))) created.

Go, “Elon.” Go!

Leftists Hate Free Speech Because They Fear Dissent, Not ‘Disinformation’

I think one of the most bizarre social developments of the past 10 years in the US has been the slow but steady shift of the political left as supposed defenders of free speech to enemies of free speech. The level of mental gymnastics on display by leftists to justify their attacks on freedom and the 1st Amendment is bewildering.

leftists hate free speech because they fear dissent, not 'disinformation'

So much so that I begin to question if liberals and leftists ever actually had any respect for 1st Amendment rights to begin with? Or, maybe the only freedom they cared about all along was the freedom to watch pornography…

One can see the steady progression of this war on speech and ideas, and the end game is predictable:

Is anyone really that surprised that the Biden Administration is implementing a Ministry of Truth in the form of the DHS Disinformation Governance Board?

Can we just accept the reality at this point that leftists are evil and their efforts feed into an agenda of authoritarianism? Is there any evidence to the contrary?

Before I get into this issue, I think it’s important to point out that it’s becoming tiresome to hear arguments these days suggesting that meeting leftists “somewhere in the middle” is the best and most desirable option. I see this attitude all over the place and I think it comes from a certain naivety about the situation we are facing as a country.

Moderates and “normies” along with people like Bill Maher and Russell Brand are FINALLY starting to realize how bag-lady-crazy leftists are and the pendulum is swinging back slightly. But, it was conservatives that were calling out the social justice cult and their highway to hell for years.

While everyone else was blissfully ignorant, we were fighting the battles that stalled the leftist advance. This is not to say I’m not happy to have moderates and reformed liberals on board, it’s a great thing. However, the time for diplomacy and meeting leftists halfway is long dead.

There is no such thing as a “center” in our society anymore, either you lean conservative and you support freedom, or you lean left and support authoritarianism. There is no magical and Utopian in-between that we need to achieve to make things right. We are not required to tolerate leftist authoritarianism because of “democracy.”

Sometimes certain ideologies and certain groups are mutually exclusive to freedom; meaning, they cannot coexist within a society that values liberty.

We need to be clear about where the lines are drawn, because sitting on the fence is not an option. Walk in middle of road? Get squished like grape.

To understand how leftists got to the point of enthusiastic hatred of free speech rights there are some psychological and philosophical factors that need to be addressed. These include specific ideals that leftists value that are disjointed or simply irrational:

Hate Speech Is Real And Must Be Censored?

First, as I have argued for many years, there is no such thing as “hate speech.” There is speech that some people don’t like and speech they are offended by. That is all.

Constitutionally, there is no hate speech. People are allowed to say any offensive thing they wish and believe however they wish as long as they are not slandering a person’s reputation with lies or threatening them with direct bodily harm. If you are offended by criticism, that is your problem.

Leftists believe the opposite. Instead of growing a thicker skin they think that “hate speech” should be illegal and that they should be the people that determine what hate speech is.

This is a kind of magical door to power, because if you can declare yourself the arbiter of hate speech you give yourself the authority to control ALL speech. That is to say, as the thought police all you have to do is label everything you don’t like as hate speech, no matter how factual, and you now dictate the course of society.

No one is capable of this kind of objectivity or benevolence. No person alive has the ability to determine what speech is acceptable without bias.

Like the One Ring in the Lord of The Rings, there is no individual or group capable of wielding such power without being corrupted by it. Either there is no hate speech, or everything becomes hate speech.

Free Speech Is Negated By Property Rights?

This is in direct reference to social media websites and it’s an oversimplification of the issue of free speech and large social media platforms. Here is the conundrum or “false paradigm” if you will:

Leftists argue for private property rights, but only when it comes to vast corporate big tech platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. They like private property rights for companies that they think are on their side politically; they hate private property rights for everyone else. Just look at their response to Elon Musk’s recent Twitter buyout; the leftists are demanding that Musk be stopped at all costs, and they demand that the SEC and FCC step in to disrupt the sale because they claim Musk’s purchase is a “threat to democracy.”

The media itself is clamoring to disrupt Musk’s takeover of Twitter. Whether or not you trust him, Musk’s acquisition of the platform has at least exposed the totalitarian attitudes of mainstream journalists for everyone to see. They are now even admitting on air that THEY control public discussion; that it is “their job,” and they see Musk as a threat to that monopoly.

Why are Elon Musk’s private property rights less important or protected than the original shareholders of Twitter (Vangaurd, BlackRock, Morgan Stanley and a Saudi Prince)? Because Musk does not claim to represent leftist designs and interests?

Leftists have no principles, they only care about manufacturing consent. Their method of winning requires that they never restrict themselves within the boundaries of values or morals. Again, this is the epitome of pure evil.

Beyond that irony, though, is the deeper issue of government intervention vs business rights. Many people seem to think that government power is supposed to balance out corporate power when the truth is that governments and corporations work hand in hand; they are often one in the same entity.

Twitter and other Big Tech platforms receive billions upon billions of dollars in government stimulus and tax incentives every year. Corporations as a concept are essentially a socialist creation. They enjoy limited liability and corporate personhood along with other special protections under government charter.

With all these protections, incentives, bailouts and stimulus measures it is almost impossible for small and new businesses to compete with them. They represent a monopoly through cartel; they control the marketplace by colluding with each other and colluding with the government.

A perfect example of this would be the coordination between multiple Big Tech companies to bring down Parler, a conservative leaning competitor to Twitter.

This required some of the biggest companies in the world working in unison along with the blessing of government officials to disrupt the ability of a new company to offer an alternative, and all because Parler was getting too big.

In the case of a private person’s home or their small business or small website, it’s true that there are no free speech rights.

They can kick you out and they don’t have to give a reason. But when it comes to massive conglomerates that receive billions in OUR tax dollars in order to stay alive, no, they do not deserve private property rights.

They have now made themselves into a public utility, and that means they are subject to constitutional limitations just as public schools and universities are.

This is a concept that leftists just don’t grasp. They view corporate power as sacrosanct…as long as it serves their interests.

Consider global corporations like Disney and their open intention to undermine the passage of Florida’s anti-grooming bill; this represents Disney’s vocal support for the sexualization and indoctrination of children in Florida schools.

Leftists cheered the announcement and claimed that without Disney, Florida’s economy would be wrecked. Instead, the state turned the tables and took away incentives they had been giving to Disney for decades.

Leftists responded by accusing Governor DeSantis of being a “fascist” and attacking free speech.

But let’s break this down: Leftists happily supported Disney, a massive conglomerate, and their efforts to undermine the will of the voters in Florida.

The state government stops them from undermining the voters by taking away the money and special incentives that belong to the voters. In turn, leftists claim this is a violation of Disney’s rights?

The disparity between leftist arguments on Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter vs. Disney’s attempted sabotage of Florida law could not be more confused.

When it comes to Twitter they love the idea of censorship and react with panic when the mere prospect of free speech (within the confines of US law) is presented.

When it comes to Disney, they say they love the idea of free speech, and anyone that wants to limit the corporation’s influence within Florida, no matter how criminal, is accused of fascism.

The difference is obvious – Musk appears to be an uncontrolled element, while Disney is an “ally.” Free speech and property rights are only allowed for one side of the cultural divide. Leftists attacking freedom is free speech; defending ourselves against those attacks is a threat to democracy. It’s absurd.

Disinformation Is A Threat And Censorship Is The Solution?

The holy grail of censorship is not website filters and algorithms, because as we have seen with Twitter, those platforms could be built or purchased by someone that does not share in the leftist agenda.

Instead, government intervention and the ability to define what is proper and improper discourse is the ultimate goal. The end game of authoritarians is always to write mass censorship into law, as if it is justified once it is codified.

Corporate elites and political puppets like Biden pontificating about the threat of “disinformation” is hilarious for a number of reasons, but mainly because it is the power brokers and the media that have been the main purveyors of disinformation for a long time. Suddenly today they care about the spread of lies?

I think it is obvious that such people are far more worried about the spread of facts, evidence and truth. They cannot debate on fair ground because they will lose, so, the only other option is to silence us.

The institution of the Disinformation Governance Board is a clear indication that the establishment and the useful idiots on the political left are becoming DESPERATE.

Their grip on the public mind is slipping, and we saw this during their recent attempts to enforce medical tyranny across the country in the name of covid.

Luckily, conservatives in at least 20 red states fought against the implementation of covid lockdowns, mandates and jjab passports which would have annihilated our constitutional rights forever.

For years I heard the argument that when the jackboots arrived conservatives would do nothing, and now we know this is nonsense.

Some of the few free places in the world during two years of pandemic fear mongering were red states in America, which coincidentally also have the highest concentration of conservatives.

If you want to know what our country would look like had conservatives not stopped the tide of tyranny, just take a gander at China today.

They have some of the strictest covid mandates on the planet and yet they are once again locking down millions of citizens due to “high infection rates.” Not only that, but they are starving their own people in the process.

It’s madness, and it’s exactly what leftists were arguing in favor of just a few months ago. The US is mostly open today, just as red states like mine have been free for almost the entirety of the pandemic, and what has changed? Half the country is still unvaccinated – Is there mass death in the streets? Nope.

Nothing has changed in terms of covid. The mandates made no difference whatsoever, other than to disrupt the economy and reduce people’s freedoms.

Not long ago, pointing out this fact was considered “disinformation” that needed to be silenced in order to “save lives.” The Hunter Biden laptop story was called disinformation.

The Wuhan Lab story was called disinformation. Fauci’s gain of function research on covid at the Wuhan lab was called disinformation. The fact that vaccinated people still contract and die from covid was called disinformation.

In other words, what the government and corporate oligarchs call “disinformation” today is eventually called reality tomorrow.

I would be happy to enter into a fair debate with White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on any of the above issues and her views of what constitutes “disinformation,” but she would never do such a thing because she knows she would be crushed like a bug.

It is not the government’s job to protect the public from information, whether real or fake. It is not their job to filter or censor data or ideas. They are not qualified to do this. No one is.

Leftists operate from a collectivist mentality and this makes them believe that society is a singular entity that needs to be managed and manipulated to achieve a desired outcome.

They have no concept of individual responsibility and discernment, but that is a side note to the real problem. They support information control because facts and ideas outside of their narrative could possibly damage that narrative. And, if the narrative is damaged they lose their feeling of power, which is all they really care about.

If your narrative is so fragile that it does not hold up to scrutiny or alternative viewpoints then it must not be worth much of a damn. If you have to force people or manipulate people into believing the way you do, then your ideology must be fundamentally flawed.

The truth speaks volumes for itself and eventually wins without force. Only lies need to be forced into the collective consciousness. Only lies require tyranny.

Eventually reality wins over propaganda, unless total censorship and totalitarianism can be achieved. Nothing has changed in the 200+ years since the creation of the Bill of Rights.

Free speech is still integral to a functioning society. Without it, society crumbles. They will claim that today things are different and that society needs to be “protected from itself.” This is what tyrants always say when trying to steal power.

Most people reading this know by now that this is a war. It’s not a political debate that requires give-and-take, but a full-bore winner-take-all conflict. A DHS faction which is mandated to monitor our speech and propagandize the public is unacceptable and must be eliminated.

Leftist and globalist monopoly of social media communications platforms is unacceptable and must be eliminated. The imposition of leftist and globalist ideology into the media narrative while censoring any contrary information is unacceptable and must be eliminated.

This is about saving the remaining embers of American culture. If we do not take an aggressive stand now, the next generation may never know liberty. Everything we hold dear is at stake.

By Brandon Smith, Alt-Market.us

The Digital Dehumanisation Of Mankind

Ray Kurzweil doesn’t have a God to honour. He has a machine, and he wants us all to shift to this digital version of the divine. He wants us to become super-computers in all but name. He calls it ‘the singularity’, a name with a quasi-religious ring to it. The singularity stands for ‘the fusion of the real with the synthetic’.

interaction of science and technology

Kurzweil sees this as a supreme act that will end the need for human evolution by transferring the meaning and purpose of life into a ‘real-time’ electro-digital encyclopedia composed of trillions of soulless electrical circuits that ape what we call ‘knowledge’.

He’s not alone in this way of thinking, there’s ZuckerbergSchwabMusk and who knows who else. And then there’s a whole trail of followers stretching out behind, all travelling the same way. Tens of millions, if not billions of them. They don’t describe themselves as believers in ‘the singularity’, they simply worship the same digital totem and allow it to gradually take-over their lives – megabyte by megabyte, gigabyte by gigabyte – until they can no longer be described as human.

When you see people constantly looking downwards, you realise that they are metamorphosing into something less than human. Aspiration – the desire to grow, learn and be more than one is – is an upward moving action.

The impulse of aspiration to a state of higher consciousness, is an upwardly rising movement. As a tree or flower reaches for the light, so do we humans.

But those seduced by their cell phones, I pods, tabs et al. always look down. Down into a place where the only light is the LED powered glow on the face of their appliance.

Slowly but surely humans are being transformed into that which they are addicted to. They are losing their ability to see and respond to the actual Light, their guiding angel and innate link with universal cosmic consciousness. They are loosing their humanity. Their soul is being overridden, short-circuited, deleted.

Whenever one sits in front of a glowing screen one is the subject of hypnosis. One is subconsciously becoming reliant upon that which is the gateway technology into another world of being and perceiving: ‘a virtual world’.

Kurzweil and those billions who adopt his fascination with a virtual existence, are placing a great burden on the rest of life. They are dead weight imposed upon living matter. They are the receivers and transmitters of distorted energy fields – and these fields pollute the natural vibratory fields responsible for the health and well being of all living matter.

People who only look down ‘shed’ their negative vibrations on others in their vicinity. This is a vibratory reality. And when coupled with the actual EMF radiation emanating from that to which they are addicted, the circadian rhythms of the biosphere are drowned-out by a pervasive electro smog.

The Schumann Resonance (7.86 Hertz) which maintains balance of the natural environment, including humans, wildlife and plant life, is pushed into the background, while the synthetic radiation frequencies beamed out from 3,4,5G towers and transmitters, become the predominant energy field.

A voltage field that is dispersed and accentuated by the little pocket time bombs that some 95% of those living and working in Western societies cannot bear to part company with.

But when your best friend is a machine you easily fall victim to its powers.

Man’s love-affair with technology has intensified with each passing decade. There has always been a fascination with that which appears to make daily life more navigable and more ‘convenient’.

But the price to be paid for the ever more high-tech and ‘unrepairable’ digitalised props of the modern age, is far too high. They cannot simply be dismissed as something ‘one can’t do without’.

Food, water, clothes, shelter and medicine belong in that category, but not convenience technologies that kill.

We humans are not machines. We have sensitive physical bodies, astoundingly brilliant brains and exquisite powers of perception and spirituality. The role of the machine is to support this condition, not to override it. To accentuate a creative ‘human scale’ sense of proportion and responsiveness in daily life.

Today’s multifarious tech toys have been weaponised. They were born out of military research and development. They were conceived and designed as intentional weapons and surveillance tools, combined into one.

They come with no health warning, aside from some precautionary small print, less obvious than that associated with plastic toys. Children are urged to enter into long-term relationships with these toxic electro magnetic play things, and with the virtual worlds they draw their owners into – like moths to the flame. They are military accessories, sweetened and domesticated into tools of ‘friendly’ torture. Silent weapons seductively distorting the divine human condition.

Now we begin to see the dire results of having adopted such a blind degree of faith in the fake one-eyed god called ‘progress’, with its Faustian promise of taking us ever closer to the promised land of technological perfection. The transmutation of warm, spontaneous, creative human beings into sterile, soulless cyborgs.

That is the Kurzweil, Zuckerberg, Gates and Schwab agenda for the future of humanity; these dark agents of genocide of the human soul.

So guard your precious, responsive souls with your very life. Never let them be technologically enslaved. Give them the true breathing space they need to make themselves known to you.

For your soul alone knows the true direction to the Promised Land.

by Julian Rose

Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) Is A Totalitarian Dystopia

Individualistic western societies are built on the idea that no one knows our thoughts, desires or joys better than we do. And so we put ourselves, rather than the government, in charge of our lives.

We tend to agree with the philosopher Immanuel Kant’s claim that no one has the right to force their idea of the good life on us.

Artificial intelligence (A.I.) will change this. It will know us better than we know ourselves.

Artificial Intelligence (a.i.) Is A Totalitarian Dystopia

A government armed with AI could claim to know what its people truly want and what will really make them happy. At best it will use this to justify paternalism, at worst, totalitarianism.

Every hell starts with a promise of heaven. AI-led totalitarianism will be no different. Freedom will become obedience to the state. Only the irrational, spiteful or subversive could wish to chose their own path.

To prevent such a dystopia, we must not allow others to know more about ourselves than we do. We cannot allow a self-knowledge gap.

The All-Seeing A.I.

In 2019, the billionaire investor Peter Thiel claimed that AI was “literally communist”. He pointed out that AI allows a centralising power to monitor citizens and know more about them than they know about themselves. China, Thiel noted, has eagerly embraced AI.

We already know AI’s potential to support totalitarianism by providing an Orwellian system of surveillance and control. But AI also gives totalitarians a philosophical weapon. As long as we knew ourselves better than the government did, liberalism could keep aspiring totalitarians at bay.

But AI has changed the game. Big tech companies collect vast amounts of data on our behaviour. Machine-learning algorithms use this data to calculate not just what we will do, but who we are.

Today, AI can predict what films we will like, what news we will want to read, and who we will want to friend on Facebook. It can predict whether couples will stay together and if we will attempt suicide. From our Facebook likes, AI can predict our religious and political views, personality, intelligence, drug use and happiness.

The accuracy of AI’s predictions will only improve. In the not-too-distant future, as the writer Yuval Noah Harari has suggested, AI may tell us who we are before we ourselves know.

These developments have seismic political implications. If governments can know us better than we can, a new justification opens up for intervening in our lives. They will tyrannise us in the name of our own good.

Freedom Through Tyranny

The philosopher Isaiah Berlin foresaw this in 1958. He identified two types of freedom. One type, he warned, would lead to tyranny.

Negative freedom is “freedom from”. It is freedom from the interference of other people or government in your affairs. Negative freedom is no one else being able to restrain you, as long as you aren’t violating anyone else’s rights.

In contrast, positive freedom is “freedom to”. It is the freedom to be master of yourself, freedom to fulfil your true desires, freedom to live a rational life. Who wouldn’t want this?

But what if someone else says you aren’t acting in your “true interest”, although they know how you could. If you won’t listen, they may force you to be free – coercing you for your “own good”. This is one of the most dangerous ideas ever conceived. It killed tens of millions of people in Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao’s China.

The Russian Communist leader, Lenin, is reported to have said that the capitalists would sell him the rope he would hang them with. Peter Thiel has argued that, in AI, capitalist tech firms of Silicon Valley have sold communism a tool that threatens to undermine democratic capitalist society. AI is Lenin’s rope.

Fighting For Ourselves

We can only prevent such a dystopia if no one is allowed to know us better than we know ourselves. We must never sentimentalise anyone who seeks such power over us as well-intentioned. Historically, this has only ever ended in calamity.

One way to prevent a self-knowledge gap is to raise our privacy shields. Thiel, who labelled AI as communistic, has argued that “crypto is libertarian”. Cryptocurrencies can be “privacy-enabling”. Privacy reduces the ability of others to know us and then use this knowledge to manipulate us for their own profit.

Yet knowing ourselves better through AI offers powerful benefits. We may be able to use it to better understand what will make us happy, healthy and wealthy. It may help guide our career choices. More generally, AI promises to create the economic growththat keeps us from each other’s throats.

The problem is not AI improving our self-knowledge. The problem is a power disparity in what is known about us. Knowledge about us exclusively in someone else’s hands is power over us. But knowledge about us in our own hands is power for us.

Anyone who processes our data to create knowledge about us should be legally obliged to give us back that knowledge. We need to update the idea of “nothing about us without us” for the AI-age.

What AI tells us about ourselves is for us to consider using, not for others to profit from abusing. There should only ever be one hand on the tiller of our soul. And it should be ours.

The Technocratic Coup Is Advancing Rapidly – Is This The America You Want?

Do you know what “technocracy” means? If not, it is time you learn about it, because we are currently going through what technocracy expert Patrick Wood says is a Coup D’état as the technocrats take over the world, literally.

Mr. Wood was interviewed this week by Spiro Skouras of Activist Post, and he stated:

The whole world right now is laboring under the same issues that we are laboring in our country. That is, the Great Panic of 2020…

School Child Wearing Face Mask During Corona Virus And Flu Outbr

The technocrats who are pushing technocracy globally have finally succeeded in springing the trap on the entire planet.

And in the process, they have shut down the entire global economic system.

Around the world people in other countries are looking to America to save the world…. and it’s not going to be our government that does it, it’s the American citizens like you and me….

The Technocrat

Technocracy is not all that new, and has been around since the 1930s here in the U.S.

In their publication The Technocrat published in 1938, they defined “technocracy” 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 of this continent.

Mr. Wood explains that technocracy was not developed as a political structure.

It was not a political system. They hated politicians. They wanted to do away with the entire political structure, and simply manage the economy.

They wanted to do it using what they call this “science of social engineering.”

Mr. Wood gives some examples of contemporary technocrats who are involved in the “science of social engineering”:

Wood says:

These people are not communists. They’re not socialists, and they’re not Marxists. They’re technocrats (who believe in social engineering).

The goals of the technocrats today are embodied in the United Nations’s “sustainable development” goals and part of the New World Order agenda, which is primarily an economic system, and not a political system.

Both Spiro and Mr. Wood made reference to President Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell speech at the end of his 8 years in office, on January 17, 1961, where he warned about the danger of the technocrats. One quote:

Today, the solitary inventor tinkering in his shop has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists.

In laboratories and testing fields in the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountain head of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research.

Partly because of the huge cost of research, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.

For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present, and is greatly to be regarded.

Yet in holding scientific 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 scientific technological elite.

Mr. Wood elaborates on the fact that the goal of the technocrats is an economic system, and not a political system. They want a “Scientific Dictatorship.”

This was the driving force behind the eugenics movement in the U.S. during the 1930s and 1940s, and led to forced sterilization laws being imposed on “genetically inferior” women the technocrats did not want to continue breeding.

This is a result of social engineering by the technocrats.

I still see this at the United Nations today, and I still see it whenever Bill Gates speaks anywhere, they look at you and I as cattle steers in a giant feed lot where all of your food is pre-mixed, and you’re force-fed, and you get shots with this thing, and that thing, and you get branded and you get pushed to this corral and pushed to that corral.

This is social engineering in their mind. This is just a continuation of what’s been going on for almost a hundred years.

They just don’t care about individual human life.

Patrick Wood does offer some solutions. He founded a website called “Citizens for Free Speech,” as he believes the first thing that has to go to abolish the Constitution of the United States is to abolish the First Amendment, and free speech.

This is already being suppressed by the technocrats and their social media platforms, as even Google Search results now are geared towards their world view only.

He believes that face mask and social distancing orders are an attack on the First Amendment, and members of his Citizens for Free Speech organization are wearing small placards that look like this to protest wearing a mask:

“People are coming to us by the thousands every month.”