Among the many hypocrisies of the technocrats who constantly demagogue about something called Democracy™ is the fact that their ideology is fundamentally, inherently, inevitably opposed to its practice.
I have written previously elsewhere about the Biden regime’s practice of unilaterally surrendering its governing authority to the agencies it ostensibly has control of. “The [fill in the blank federal agency] is independent and makes its own decisions” is the constant refrain of White House mouthpieces. This applies to the FDA, the Federal Reserve, the CDC, and even the Department of Justice.
Part of the reason for this kind of punting is to avoid the political fallout from unpopular decisions, but another, more important part of the reason is normalizing the outsourcing of government operations to technocratic authorities beyond the reach of the population (the “demo” part of “democracy”).
(For the fellow political science nerds out there — there’s always one who chimes in with “but we’re not a democracy” — I understand the United States is not designed to be a literal direct, or “pure,” democracy but rather a representative republic. Nonetheless, it is a subtype of the democratic ideal of popular control of the state. For the purpose of this article, and in most other contexts, representative republic vs. direct democracy is a distinction without a meaningful difference.)
The concentration of power into an ever-tinier set of human and non-human, artificial intelligence hands is a trend there is no ostensible way to avert so long as technological progress — or so-called progress — plods on.
And since the global economy in its current iteration depends on constant technological development, not to mention the human drive to innovate, there is no reason to believe it will stop. The functioning of a technology-based civilization, in fact, increasingly depends on centralized decision-making authority; it would otherwise descend into entropy.
Via the “Unabomber’s” manifesto “Industrial Society and Its Future” (this is not an endorsement of his terroristic activities):
In any technologically advanced society the individual’s fate MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a million people, then each of the affected individual has, on the average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be significant. Thus most individuals are unable to influence measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. There is no conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society. The system tries to “solve” this problem by using propaganda to make people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if this “solution” were completely successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning.
Critics of the criticism of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” as Klaus Schwab terms it, argue that the social and economic upheaval generated by the first through third Industrial Revolutions of posterity — which completely re-ordered feudal European society and gave rise to the world wars of the past century — was somehow weathered and social stability restored eventually, so there is no reason not to expect the same sort of outcome with subsequent revolutions.
But that industrial revolution was nothing like this one, which has as its core the interconnection of everything in a digitalized, centralized control grid, for several reasons:
- The social control opportunities presented by the current technological revolution are without precedent. The so-called “Internet of Things” will soon link every item in the physical universe — including, in the end, human bodies — to a digital social control grid, which can be manipulated by its operators (whether they be human or eventually non-human AI).
- While the prior technological revolution was essentially organic — it would have occurred with or without direction from governing authorities — this one is very much directed by self-anointed globalist technocrats, exemplified by the World Economic Forum.
- The scope and pace of change, also with no analogous reference point in history.
Via The World Economic Forum (emphasis added):
The First Industrial Revolution used water and steam power to mechanize production. The Second used electric power to create mass production. The Third used electronics and information technology to automate production. Now a Fourth Industrial Revolution is building on the Third, the digital revolution that has been occurring since the middle of the last century. It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.
There are three reasons why today’s transformations represent not merely a prolongation of the Third Industrial Revolution but rather the arrival of a Fourth and distinct one: velocity, scope, and systems impact. The speed of current breakthroughs has no historical precedent. When compared with previous industrial revolutions, the Fourth is evolving at an exponential rather than a linear pace. Moreover, it is disrupting almost every industry in every country. And the breadth and depth of these changes herald the transformation of entire systems of production, management, and governance.
Incrementally, individual autonomy, and accordingly group autonomy of a nation-state, is chipped away at and rendered a relic of the past. Barring mass acts of popular resistance or other unforeseen intervening variables, it will soon no longer be possible to functionally participate in mainstream society without being plugged into the proverbial Matrix, into the operations of which individual will is not factored at all.
The only chance at autonomy in any meaningful sense will be for certain groups to make a full, clean, Amish-style break from the system — but then there’s no guarantee such an alternative economic or social system (sometimes called “parallel economies”) will be permitted to continue existing if their interests ever conflict, even mildly, with those of the technocracy.
