Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation is a 2014 book by Patrick Wood. He is the living expert on modern globalization, the Trilateral Commission, Technocracy and Transhumanism. Jerm, a South African podcaster, wrote, “Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.” His interview with Patrick Wood is available at this link.
In the May 2021 New York Times article, “Shoshana Zuboff Explains Why You Should Care About Privacy,” the author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism discusses why people should pay attention to how big tech companies are using their information.
Michael P. Senger’s recent substack article, “Big Tech isn’t Woke. It’s Totalitarian. You are now my Enemy—and I am Yours” reports, “Technocracy seeks direct control over every human, every animal, every system and every resource on the planet. If not rejected, it will establish an unbreakable scientific dictatorship.”
Some Facebook users are experiencing the consequences of a resisting a global technocratic order, and not fooled by guises of concern about privacy, safety, or security.
An unknown number of users have been receiving the following message:
One might think that this message was sent to accounts with either large numbers of friends and followers, or a history of security issues.
Unfortunately for democracy, free speech, and human rights, unless Facebook can provide evidence to the contrary, this isn’t the case.
Many individuals growing up in the technological age have few concerns about sharing their cellphone number. But this isn’t true for everyone. There are humans who are not bonded to phones.
It is not possible to determine how many Facebook accounts have been targeted for “enhanced security,” which amounts to increased surveillance.
And like racial profiling, it is targeted.
What makes the Facebook claim even more disturbing is that many targeted users have already faced outright censorship via Facebook jail time, and shadow-banning.
The Technocratic data overloads know that yesterday I searched for information about harvesting yarrow, and looked at a certain map, and clicked on a certain music video.
The Technocracy data overloads also know full well that many of the individuals who are engaged in advocacy regarding concerns about 5G telecommunications and microwave radio frequencies powering wireless technologies are disabled and/or do not use wireless devices, including cell phones and apps.
Arthur Firstenberg, author of The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, wrote,
“In 2002, Gro Harlem Brundtland, then head of the World Health Organization, told a Norwegian journalist that cell phones were banned from her office in Geneva because she personally becomes ill if a cell phone is brought within about four meters of her. Mrs. Brundtland is a medical doctor and former Prime Minister of Norway. Five months later, for reasons that many suspect were related to these circumstances, Mrs. Brundtland announced she would step down from her leadership post at the WHO after just one term.”
Facebook knows that I and others have questioned the unsubstantiated narrative that 5G opponents were responsible for burning down 5G towers. During the covid lockdowns, the perception was successfully installed in the minds of the public that 5G activists were low intelligence, right-leaning, violent arsonists and under the influence of Russia, as chronicled in the earlier Natural Blaze article: 5G And Those Fires — Conspiracies About Conspiracies.
In response, activists lit candles on altars worldwide to mark the Solstice.
Devra Davis’s article pointed to the obvious: “Burning 5G Towers Across Europe is Harming Health, Wildlife And The Climate.” While outlining the destruction unleashed by the fires themselves, she stated, “Without question, burning private property is a crime. This should be stopped. So should the degradation of our environment by untested technologies.” To my knowledge there is no record of a reported fire being investigated, where an individual associated with an established activist group was convicted of wrong-doing. At the same time, Black Lives Matter protests were found to be infiltrated by professional agitators.
Now, instead of stating that 5G opposition groups burned down towers, the narrative has been insidiously altered, as demonstrated in a Policy Tracker overview: “The anti-5G campaigns were so powerful that they inspired a small number of people to break the law and risk a custodial sentence.”
Nonetheless, it appears that some portion of the public has become aware of controversies concerning 5G.
The difference between libel and slander is that libel is published defamation, while slander is fleeting, mostly verbal. In the court of law, both are considered defamation—that is, the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, or group.
Was the 5G opposition/EMF/RF safety advocacy community libeled, or framed? In a fascinating tangle of story lines and accusations, did monopoly corporations including telecoms and utilities portray themselves as victims of harm, as they were harming others? Have the actual causes of the various fires and collapses been investigated by a neutral third party?
Politico EU reported, “EU countries sound alarm about growing anti-5G movement. Brussels needs to send a ‘clear and loud message’ about the benefits of the technology, 15 countries tell EU chiefs” in an article that may have initially hyperlinked to a different title: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-needs-plan-to-counter-anti-5g-movement-capitals-say/
“A growing anti-5G movement is getting in the way of Europe’s digital ambitions, 15 capitals warned the EU Commission as they called for a robust strategy to counter concerns about the new technology.” “It is clear … that we are witnessing increasing activity of the anti-5G movement across the European Union,” the group said, adding that recent attacks on telecom infrastructure “are not only a threat to the economy of the affected member states but hinder also the ability for the European Union to meet its ambitious 5G goals. [ ] We should be able not only to provide EU citizens and local authorities with scientific research but, also, with [a] clear and loud message coming from a trusted sources,” they wrote, adding “a broad and inclusive debate will ultimately contribute to creating trust.”
The analysis by policy tracker notes that the emotional power of the campaigns is responsible for their success.
“Emotional impact and a strong narrative are key ingredients in winning someone over, and the anti-5G campaigns score highly on both. They appeal to widely accepted values: family, selflessness, care for others, community, kindness, fairness, democracy, due process; values which emphasize morality and humanity. This is in sharp contrast with values often cast as representing the opposite: speed, efficiency and technology. This are the typically the focus of industry messaging. [ ] The spread of industry campaigns on 5G could equally well include the use of emotion and narrative to celebrate humanity and morality, but generally they don’t. This allows the anti-5G camp to monopolize these very powerful campaign tools.”
The technocrats have a problem.
They don’t want the narratives shared, for example, about the Pittsfield Massachusetts cell tower debacle reported in the Hill County Observer independent newspaper of eastern New York, southwestern Vermont and the Berkshires, “The cost of connectivity? Cell tower dispute puts Pittsfield at center of a national debate.” The story was also covered by Natural Blaze in the Mother’s Day series “5G EMF/RF Mother’s Day 2021; I Don’t Want Flowers And Chocolates For Mother’s Day. I Want Policy Change And Protections” and in the Earth Day series “5G Earth Day Countdown: Children — Amelia’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Cell Tower Days.”
Policy Tracker notes the emotional power of the campaigns, and points to commonality with conspiracy theories.
There is also another explanation. The campaigns are resonating with the public because they are true.
Antitrust regulations are “regulations that encourage competition by limiting the market power of any particular firm. This often involves ensuring that mergers and acquisitions don’t overly concentrate market power or form monopolies, as well as breaking up firms that have become monopolies.” In the Age of Technocracy, antitrust takes on a new meaning. More and more individuals recognize that they cannot trust the decisions of centralized authorities, including ICNIRP. See: “Self-Referencing Authorships Behind The ICNIRP 2020 Radiation Protection Guidelines” by Else K. Nordhagen and Einar Flydal from Reviews on Environmental Health.
A noose is being tightened around groups of earnest, sincere, hard-working individuals who can see that the emperor has no clothes.
Someone, somewhere should be counting and questioning who is getting censored out of Facebook, PayPal, YouTube, and other platforms and why, and counting who is being harmed by wireless exposures.
When I received the notification from Facebook demanding enhanced security, I was initially concerned for all users, including less tech-savvy elders.
But Facebook is not “securing” all users.
Targeting is targeting.
Carl Sagan noted, “If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we are up for grabs.”
Top Image Source