Technocracy In China: The World’s First Technate – Part 1

Share This:

From “”

As more journalists and researchers examine Technocracy, the tidal wave of alarm is spreading rapidly throughout the world. As TN has claimed for 15 years, China is a full-blown Technocracy hiding behind the trappings of Communism; but it isn’t Communism. This is a must-read investigative report. ⁃ TN Editor

We are being rapidly transitioned into a new system of centralised, authoritarian global governance. This system is designed to be a technocracy and it is truly totalitarian.

Totalitarianism is a form of government that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. It is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression. It does not permit individual freedom. Traditional social institutions and organizations are discouraged and suppressed, making people more willing to be merged into a single unified movement. Totalitarian states typically pursue a special goal to the exclusion of all others, with all resources directed toward its attainment, regardless of the cost.

That “special” goal is sustainable development and no cost, either financial or humanitarian, is too great to tackle the alleged “climate crisis.” In reality, climate change is simply the excuse for sustainable development and it is through the global policy commitment to “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) that technocracy is being installed.

A technocratic society is called a Technate and the world’s first Technate has emerged in China. In this two part exploration we will look at how this system was constructed, who was behind it and why technocracy is now being foisted upon all of us.

These articles are drawn largely from my 2021 publication Pseudopandemic. It is free to subscribers to my blog.


In order for global technocracy to be rolled-out, authority needs to be centrally controlled at the global level. Governments, intergovernmental organisations and multinational corporations have collaborated to form a global public-private partnership  (G3P) for this purpose.

Throughout the 20th and 21st century the G3P network has sought to construct global governance. In turn, global governance enables the worldwide distribution of the technocracy that governments then convert into national policy commitments. Many components of global technocratic governance have already been established.

The World Heath Organisation (WHO) delivers global governance of public health; global access to technological development is meted out through the World Intellectual Property Organization; the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) works to coordinate economic policies between nation-states and global trade is monitored and controlled through the trade agreements overseen by the World Trade Organisation.

The Bank For International Settlements (BIS) coordinates global monetary policy and the flow of capital; the direction of education, academia, the sciences and cultural development is steered through the U.N Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the seizure of the global commons and the “financialisation” of nature—through natural asset companies and other mechanisms—is nearing completion.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are centrally controlled through global governance, primarily by the U.N Development and Environmental programs (UNDP & UNEP). The necessary global scientific consensus on climate change is centrally administered and the appropriate research funding streams allocated, by the U.N’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The powerful individuals, pushing the G3P project forward, are a collective of mass polluters, robber barons, land grabbers and the world’s leading exponents of worker exploitation, market manipulation, monetary extortion (usury) and oppression. They form what would otherwise be considered a criminal cartel but have greenwashedtheir reputations through their commitment to so-called “sustainable development.”

Often referred to as the elite, a more fitting description is “the parasite class.”

The G3P has managed to convince billions that it is committed to sustainable, net zero, environmentalism and wants to “save the planet.” It is actually determined to empower global governance and enforce technocracy upon humanity through SDGs and the associated policy Agendas. Regardless of what you think about the causes of climate change or the level of risk it presents, SDGs do nothing to address it and are designed to serve no-one and nothing other than the G3P and its interests.

In order to requisition, commodify, audit and ultimately divide up the Earth’s resources among themselves, the stakeholder capitalists, at the heart of the G3P, also need technocratic control. Once humanity figures out what has happened, technocracy will enable the G3P to shutdown resistance through literal population control.

Every human being will be individually monitored by Artificial Intelligence (AI) networks which will punish or reward them, depending upon their behaviour. Biosecurity and environmental concerns are set to provide the justification for this enslavement.

Much like the quack pseudo-science of eugenics, which many G3P “thought leaders” seem to believe, Technocracy was the social science certainty of its day. Like eugenics, while it has subsequently faded from public consciousness, it is still avidly pursued by the G3P’s compartmentalised hierarchy.


In 1911, arguably the worlds first management consultant, Frederick Winslow Taylor, published The Principles of Scientific Management. His publication came at the culmination of the Progressive Era in the United States.

This was a period marked by the political activism of the US middle class who mainly sought to address the underlying social problems, as they saw them, of excessive industrialisation, immigration and political corruption. So-called “Taylorism,” fixated with the imminent exhaustion of natural resources and advocating efficient “scientific management systems,” was in the spirit of the age.

Taylor wrote:

In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must be first. [. . .] The best management is a true science, resting upon clearly defined laws, rules, and principles. [. . . ] The fundamental principles of scientific management are applicable to all kinds of human activities, from our simplest individual acts to the work of our great corporations.

Taylorism advocated science driven efficiency reforms across society. An efficient system should not be run by politicians or religious leaders but by “experts,” such as engineers, scientists, logistical experts, economists and other academics. The focus should always be on systemic efficiency and the proper use of precious resources, including labour.

Though Taylor’s ideas were influenced by Social Darwinism he wasn’t a eugenicist. However, his ideas were adopted by eugenicists. It “fitted” with their belief in their unassailable right to rule.

Just as they could optimise and control the human population, so they could employ the right experts to make socioeconomic and industrial systems more efficient. They could promote this as being for “the public good” while at the same time consolidating their own power and reaping a greater financial harvest from a more efficient industrialised society.

Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management chimed with the theories of economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblan. He proposed that economic activity wasn’t just a function of supply and demand, utility, value and so forth, but rather it evolved with society and was thus shaped by psychological, sociological and anthropological influences.

Both Taylor and Veblan were focused upon improving the efficiency of industrial and manufacturing processes. However, they also recognised that their theories could be extended to the wider social context. It was the more expansive application of their ideas that beguiled the parasite class.

Veblan famously spoke about “conspicuous consumption” to describe how the affluent displayed their social standing through their ability to engage in pursuits and buy items that were essentially purposeless and wasteful. This “conspicuous leisure” and “consumption” cascaded down through the class structure, as those aspiring to signal their own status emulated the wealthy.

He argued that this was a major contributory factor toward unacceptable resource waste and inefficiency. Consumer society ultimately produced more goods and services than it needed simply to meet the artificial demand created for, in his view, avoidable and unnecessary social demand.

Veblan was strongly opposed to this inefficient use of resources which he blamed on the “business classes” and financiers. He valued their contribution to the industrial age but felt they were no longer capable of managing modern industrial society.

Initially, Veblan argued that the workers must therefore be the architects of the necessary social change that would create economic and industrial reform. Later, in the Engineers and the Price System he shifted his focus away from workers, as the drivers of change, towards technocratic engineers.

He called for a thorough analysis of the institutions which maintained social stability. Once understood, he opined, those with technological expertise should reform the institutions and thereby engineer society and improve efficiency. Veblan referred to these social change agents as a “soviet of technicians.”

In 1919 Veblan was among the founders of the John D. Rockefeller funded private research university in New York called the New School for Social Research. This soon led to the creation of the Technical Alliance as Veblan joined a small team of scientists and engineers, notably Howard Scott, to form a fledgling technocratic organisation.

Scott didn’t like Veblan’s description of a soviet of techniciansreportedly calling it “a cockeyed thing.” The clear association with communism probably wasn’t welcome from a PR perspective, and Scott felt it undermined what he was trying to achieve with the technocracy movement.

Veblan’s involvement with the Technical Alliance was relatively brief and some have suggested that his contribution to technocracy was minimal, accrediting Scott as the great mind behind it. Regardless of the extent of Veblan’s personal involvement in the movement, his socioeconomic theories permeate technocracy.

In 1933 the Technical Alliance reformed after an enforced hiatus, prompted by Scott’s exposure as a fraudster—he falsified his engineering credentials. The group renamed themselves Technocracy inc.

Despite his public humiliation, Scott was a skilled orator and remained the spokesman for Technocracy inc. He worked with, among others, M. King Hubbert who would later become globally renowned for his vague and generally inaccurate “peak oil” theory.

Scott and Hubbert collaborated to write The Technocracy Inc study course to formerly introduce the world to technocracy. At the time, the proposed technocracy was technologically impossible and sounded pretty crazy. However, we are certainly more familiar with these ideas today.

Hubbert wrote:

Technocracy finds that the production and distribution of an abundance of physical wealth on a Continental scale for the use of all Continental citizens can only be accomplished by a Continental technological control, a governance of function, a Technate.

The Technate, a technocratic society initially envisaged to encompass the North American continent, would be administered by a central planning body formed of scientists, engineers and other suitably qualified technocrats. Technocracy would require a new monetary system based upon a calculation of the Technate’s total energy usage. People would be allocated an equal share of the corresponding “energy certificates” (as a form of currency) denominated in units of energy (Joule):

[I]ncome is granted to the public in the form of energy certificates. [. . .] They are issued individually to every adult of the entire population. [. . .] The record of one’s income and its rate of expenditure is kept by the Distribution Sequence, [the envisaged ledger of transactions]. [. . .] so that it is a simple matter at any time for the Distribution Sequence to ascertain the state of an unknown customer’s balance. [. . .] Energy Certificates also contain the following additional information about the person to whom issued: whether he has not yet begun his period of service, is now performing service, or is retired [where service to the Technate is rewarded with Energy Certificates] [. . .] sex, [. . .] the geographical area in which he resides, and [. . .] job at which he works.

A new price system was envisaged with all commodities and goods priced according to the energy cost of their production. Purchases made with “energy certificates” would then be reported back to the appropriate department of the technocratic central planning committee. The transactions would be catalogued and analysed, enabling the central planners to precisely calculate the rolling energy balance, between energy production and consumption, for the entire Technate.

In order for this system to work, all consumer’s energy expenditure (including all daily transactions) would need to be recorded in real time; the national inventory of net energy production and consumption would have to be constantly updated, around the clock; a registry of every commodity and product needed to be scrupulously maintained, with every individual living in the Technate allocated a personal energy account. This would be updated to record their energy usage and personal net energy balance.

Hubbert & Scott made it clear that, for technocracy to work, an all pervasive energy surveillance grid would be required. All citizens would be individually identified on the grid and every aspect of their daily lives monitored and controlled by the technocratic central planners.

Technocracy is a totalitarian form of surveillance based, centralised authoritarian governance which abolishes national sovereignty and political parties. Freedoms and rights are replaced with a duty to behave in the interest of a common good, as defined by the technocrats. All decisions about production, allocation of resources, all technological innovation and economic activity is controlled by a technocracy of experts (Veblan’s “soviet of technicians”).

In 1938 in Technocrat Magazine vol. 3 No. 4 (to give it its technocratic specification) technocracy was described 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.

For the parasite class, and their G3P stakeholder partners, technocracy was an irresistible idea. Technocracy potentially enables the precise engineering of society through the control of resources and energy through the mechanism of a linked, centrally planned and monitored, economic and monetary system.

The Technocracy inc Study Course claims:

The significance of this, from the point of view of knowledge of what is going on in the social system, and of social control, can best be appreciated when one surveys the whole system in perspective. First, one single organization is manning and operating the whole social mechanism. This same organization not only produces but distributes all goods and services. Hence a uniform system of record-keeping exists for the entire social operation, and all records of production and distribution clear to one central headquarters.

In order to control everything all the parasite class would need to do is whisper in the ear of a few hand-picked technocrats. There would be no need to corrupt politicians or orchestrate international crisis anymore. While in the 1930’s the Technate was an impracticable proposition, it was still something to inspire the G3P and a goal to work towards.


Understanding that technological development would eventually enable the Technate to be realised, in 1970 Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski (1928 – 2017) wrote Between Two Ages: America’s Role In The Technetronic Era. At the time, he was a professor of political science at Columbia university, where Scott had first met Hubbert in 1932. He had already been an advisor to both the Kennedy and Johnson campaigns and would later become National Security Advisor to US President Jimmy Carter (1977 – 1981).

Brzezinski was a significant influence on late 20th Century US foreign policy, far beyond his years in the Carter administration. The Democrat counterpart to Republican Henry Kissinger, he was a centrist and his deep dislike of the Soviet Union often placed him on the right of Kissinger on related issues. He supported the Vietnam War and was instrumental in “Operation Cyclone which saw the US arm, train and equip Islamist extremists in Afghanistan.

He was a member of numerous policy think tanks including the Council on Foreign Relations, The Center For Strategic & International Studies, Le Cercle and was a regular attendee at the annual parasite class soiree, the Bilderberg conference. In 1973 he and David Rockefeller formed the Trilateral Commission policy think tank. Brzezinski was very much part of the Deep State milieu and the G3P.

Between Two Ages is a geopolitical analysis and practical set of policy recommendations born from Brzezinski’s view that digital technology would transform society, culture, politics and the global balance of political power. It also provides us with a clear view of the mindset of the parasite class.

Brzezinski didn’t reference technocracy directly, perhaps wary of its rather sketchy reputation following Scott’s disgrace. However, he did describe it in detail throughout the book:

Technological adaptation would involve the transformation of the bureaucratic dogmatic party into a party of technocrats. Primary emphasis would be on scientific expertise, efficiency, and discipline. [. . .] the party would be composed of scientific experts, trained in the latest techniques, capable of relying on cybernetics and computers for social control.

He theorised about, what he called, the “Technetronic Age” and offered a vision of the near future, from the perspective of the 1970’s. Brzezinski predicted that this Age would arise as a result of the Technetronic Revolution. This would be the “third revolution” to follow the industrial revolution. Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, would later call this the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Brzezinski wrote:

The post industrial society is becoming a ‘technetronic’ society: a society that is shaped culturally, psychologically, socially, and economically by the impact of technology and electronics—particularly in the area of computers and communications.

He then went on to describe what he thought life in the Technetronic Age would be like for ordinary men, women and their families. He foretold how political and industrial control would be replaced by psychological control mechanisms, such as the cult of personality, steering us towards behaviour change. Our lives would be managed through computing power and, in the parlance of today, led by science:

Both the growing capacity for the instant calculation of the most complex interactions and the increasing availability of biochemical means of human control augment the potential scope of consciously chosen direction. [. . .] Masses are organized in the industrial society by trade unions and political parties and unified by relatively simple and somewhat ideological programs. [. . .] In the technetronic society the trend seems to be toward aggregating the individual support of millions of unorganized citizens, who are easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities, and effectively exploiting the latest communication techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.

He also explained how technology would enable extensive behaviour modification and manipulation of the population. He foresaw (suggested) how this could be weaponised:

It may be possible—and tempting—to exploit for strategic political purposes the fruits of research on the brain and on human behavior. [. . .] one could develop a system that would seriously impair the brain performance of very large populations in selected regions over an extended period.

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote enthusiastically, through a paper-thin veil of caution, about how a “global scientific elite” could not only use extreme, all-pervasive propaganda, economic and political manipulation to determine the direction of society, but could also exploit technology and behavioural science to genetically alter and brainwash the population.

Describing the form of this society and the potential for technocratic control, he wrote:

Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control.

He claimed that the “Technetronic Age” he described was inevitable. Therefore he asserted that the future of the United States (and the planet) must be centrally planned. These planners would eventually displace “the lawyer as the key social legislator and manipulator.”

As is so often the excuse, warning that others—he meant the Soviet Union—wouldn’t hesitate to embark on this dark social engineering path, this therefore necessitated the urgent need for US geopolitical strategists to develop this network of planners (technocracy) first. This would be done by fusing government with academia and private corporations (the G3P).

He stated that political parties would become increasingly irrelevant, replaced by regional structures pursuing “urban, professional, and other interests.” These could be used to “provide the focus for political action.” He understood the potential for this localised, technocratic administrative system:

In the technetronic age the greater availability of means permits the definition of more attainable ends, thus making for a less doctrinaire and a more effective relationship between ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be.

He also suggested a redefinition of freedom. Liberty would be achieved through centrally planned public commitment to social and economic equality. The “public good” thus defined by the technocrats.

The positive potential of the third American revolution lies in its promise to link liberty with equality.

Brzezinski recognised that it would be impossible to impose world government directly. Rather it should be gradually constructed through a system of global governance comprised of treaties, bilateral agreements and intergovernmental organisations:

Though the objective of shaping a community of the developed nations is less ambitious than the goal of world government, it is more attainable. [. . .] It [global governance] attempts to create a new framework for international affairs not by exploiting these divisions [between nation-states] but rather by striving to preserve and create openings for reconciliation.

One “opening” that he was particularly interested in was China. Tensions between Russia and China had continued to rumble on and, as Brzezinski wrote Between Two Ages, they had spilled over into a border conflict. He saw that the Sino-Soviet split had created an opportunity to shape China’s modernisation:

In China the Sino-Soviet conflict has already accelerated the inescapable Sinification of Chinese communism. That conflict shattered the revolution’s universal perspective and—perhaps even more important— detached Chinese modernization from its commitment to the Soviet model. Hence, whatever happens in the short run, in years to come Chinese development will probably increasingly share the experience of other nations in the process of modernization. This may both dilute the regime’s ideological tenacity and lead to more eclectic experimentation in shaping the Chinese road to modernity.

These ideas were firmly in Brzezinski’s mind when he and committed eugenicist David Rockefeller, whose family had been bankrolling technocratic initiatives for more than 50 years, first convened the Trilateral Commission. They were eventually joined by other so called “thought leaders” like population control expert Henry Kissinger, Club of Rome environmentalist Gro Harlem Brundtland, US presidents like Bill Clinton, and the president of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haass, who more recently wrote World Order 2.0.


Mao Zedong’s “great leap forward” saw 40 million people brutalised and starved to death in just three horrific years (1959 – 1961). Apologists claim this was all a terrible mistake but it was nothing of the kind.

In the certain knowledge that food supplies were running out, in 1958 Mao said “to distribute resources evenly will only ruin the Great Leap Forward” and later the same year:

When there is not enough to eat, people starve to death. It is better to let half the people die so that others can eat their fill.

In his zeal to create a communist utopia, Mao presided over a system that seized food from starving millions and exported it to fund his political reforms and determination to rapidly industrialise the economy. It wasn’t an error or an unfortunate oversight. While many were so terrified that they submitted fake reports of surpluses that didn’t exist, it is clear that the leadership of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) knew exactly what the human costs were. They just didn’t care.

Nor did David Rockefeller, as evidenced by his 1973 op-ed for the New York Times. He and his Chase Group banking empire delegation had visited Maoist China. In his account of the trip, Rockefeller dismissed the mass murder of millions as “whatever.” It was the product of genocide that Rockefeller was interested in:

One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony. [. . .] There is a very real and pervasive dedication to Chairman Mao and Maoist principles. Whatever the price of the Chinese revolution it has obviously succeeded, not only in producing a more efficient administration, but also in fostering. [. . .] a community of purpose.

The Trilateralist Rockefeller could see the opportunity the Chinese dictatorship presented the parasite class. In full agreement with Brzezinski, he wrote:

Too often the true significance and potential of our new relationship with China has been obscured. [. . .] In fact, of course, we are experiencing a much more fundamental phenomenon. [. . .] The Chinese, for their part, are faced with altering a primarily inward focus. [. . .] We, for our part, are faced with the realization that we have largely ignored a country with one-fourth of the world’s population.

The “we” Rockefeller referred to was not us. He meant the G3P and his fellow “stakeholder capitalists” and Trilateralists.

The totalitarian order in China impressed him as he hoped it would. He wasn’t the first Trilateralist to see the technocratic possibilities in China. The sheer scale of the market was an enticing prospect and the promise of the “Technetronic Age” raised the real potential to build the world’s first Technate.

Completely discounting the appalling loss of human life, Rockefeller wrote:

The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history. How extensively China opens up and how the world reacts to the social innovation. [. . .] is certain to have a profound impact upon the future of many nations.

The G3P’s task was to crack open the Chinese market while supporting ongoing totalitarian rule. China would need help with its economic development and technical support to build the technological infrastructure necessary for technocracy to work. This process had already begun, but with Rockefeller, Brzezinski, Kissinger and others committed to the cause, the target of constructing a Technate was firmly in the Trilateral Commission’s sights.

The Trilateralists set about assisting China to develop both economically and technologically, while remaining careful to avoid applying too much pressure for political reform. Totalitarianism was a system they supported and wanted to exploit. In their 1978 Paper No. 15 on East-West Relations they suggested:

To grant China favourable conditions in economic relations is definitely in the political interest of the West.. there seems to exist sufficient ways for aiding China in acceptable forms with advanced civilian technology.

In the same paper the Trilateralists announced that they weren’t entirely averse to helping China modernise their military capability, though they stressed this should only be for defensive purposes.

They accepted that a modern, militarised China might turn to expansionism and seek to regain territory it historically claimed as its own, in particular Taiwan. They judged this was a reasonable risk to take.

They were playing the great game. Human lives were of no concern.

In Part 2 we will look at how they set about constructing the world’s first Technate in China.

Read full story here…

Share This: