Things are getting tighter and tighter for freedom-loving people:
In various countries around the world, control over people is increasing.
Here is a recent example from the United Kingdom.
The British Labour government, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, has paved the way for local governments to implement
the concept of so-called “15-minute cities” nationwide.
Under the pretext of climate neutrality and decarbonization—that is, reducing carbon emissions—the British
public’s freedom of movement can now be quite easily curtailed.
Oxford is set to launch the program this year already: The city will be divided into six 15-minute zones.
Travel between the zones is free for residents on only 100 days a year.
A monitoring system consisting of cameras, barriers, and automatic license plate recognition is designed
to ensure that every resident complies with the rules. Failure to do so may result in fines.
What is presented under the guise of climate or environmental protection is ultimately nothing but
a surveillance state with the aid of technology!
Such a dictatorial form of government has long been the goal by self-proclaimed would-be world rulers.
For decades, they have been working on a new form of government, so-called technocracy.
Today's broadcast exposes the driving forces behind this technocratic movement, its dangerous plans and insidious methods.
Let's start with the founding and goals of the technocracy movement.
In the winter of 1918, the American Howard Scott founded the so-called Technical Alliance.
The members of the Technical Alliance shared the conviction that democracy, national sovereignty, and market
economy had failed and had to be replaced by an unelected rule of engineers and technical experts.
They called for the reshaping of society in accordance with the principles of science and technology.
Their new economic and monetary system was to be based on the controlled distribution and regulated consumption of energy.
To this end, they developed “energy certificates,” also known as “energy rationing cards."
These were to include all personal data for each citizen—that is, their age, gender, occupation, place of residence,
an energy allocation, an overview of purchases made, and the issue and expiry dates of the certificates.
Energy certificates would serve as the new currency.
That sounds very much like a precursor of the globally envisioned E-ID for every citizen, linked
to a basic income in digital central bank money.
This system was intended to abolish elections and party politics and replace them with
centralized control of production and resources.
Ultimately, the goal was to establish a North American technate: “The Technate of America.”
The idea is that this technate would form an “independent, self-sustaining geographical unit.”
The government would then have control over all raw materials, companies, factories, and industries within the technate,
as well as comprehensive access to the population's property.
But who initiated the Technical Alliance?
Let's take a closer look at Howard Scott. Was he a visionary or rather a puppet?
Little is known about Howard Scott's (1890–1970) early years.
He suddenly “appeared” in Greenwich Village, New York, in 1918.
Even though he had only a 9th-grade diploma, Scott saw himself as a “bohemian engineer” .
In 1933, Howard Scott founded Technocracy Incorporated, an organization he led until his death in 1970.
A contemporary witness reports that Howard Scott is said to have had a vivid imagination and
acted as a “prophet,” as the following quote shows:
“Howard explained to me that he knew the kind of society he was advocating could not yet come into being.”
"First, experiments by those from the left-wing and those from the right-wing would have to take place ..."
How did Scott know, around 1920, what would happen next in history? At that time, those events were still in the future.
In the book *Words and Wisdom of Howard Scott*, Scott said the following in a speech in 1961:
“…One of the big troubles with all of this is that your computer is going to do away with your accountants and your engineers, and
it is also going to do away with your executives, as well as the blue collar and the white collar, so more
power to all of the computer and control mechanisms.”
Could Scott have known back in 1961 where things were heading in the current time?
Did he perhaps have unknown benefactors who had helped him rise to his position?
Was the technocracy movement connected to high finance?
Composed primarily of engineers and scientists, the technocracy movement was founded at Columbia University in New York.
According to technocracy expert Patrick Wood, Columbia University was already a “progressive think tank”
back then. It had close ties to the Rockefeller dynasty.
So, amongst others, Columbia university has played a role in the conquest and transformation of
the medical sector through the Rockefeller family.
Replacing natural remedies by chemical products of the pharma industry
With this the Rockefellers created a massive market for their chemical, petroleum-based
products in the medical field, starting in 1910.
Starting in 1959, a key figure among today’s world leaders was also active at that very same Columbia
University: the influential global strategist and close friend of David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzeziński.
He taught there as a professor of political science.
In addition to the Rockefellers, Brzeziński was also closely connected to Edmond Adolphe de Rothschild, a scion of the
Rothschild dynasty—which, like the Rockefellers, is a dynasty of high finance that ranks at the very
top of the freemasonry hierarchy. More on that later.
In 1970, Brzeziński published the book *Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era*.
In it, he reveals himself to be a die-hard technocrat. This book lays bare the
technocratic goals for establishing world domination.
What dangerous goals did Brzeziński & Co. pursue?
In their pamphlet “Technocracy in Plain Terms,” published in 1939, the early technocrats wrote:
“Technocracy stands for [...] a new form of control operated and directed by a Continental Control, […]”
What claims do they make regarding technocracy?:
“It is a new method of governing society, (…) Only technocracy can do it —the scientific control of all social functions.”
“Technocracy is the science of social engineering …”
Social engineering refers to manipulation techniques designed to bring about specific behaviors in people.
According to Technocracy Inc., the end product is “a continental system of human conditioning.” This
means the learning of stimulus-response patterns.
The plan, therefore, was to deliberately “train” the technocratic citizen through a system of rewards and punishments.
Efforts in China to establish a social credit system are moving in the same direction: behavior that is
politically desirable—that is, conformist behavior—is rewarded, while nonconformist behavior is punished.
A little later, Zbigniew Brzeziński writes in his 1970 book *Between Two Ages*:
“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society.”
"Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values."
How does the elite control the citizens? Brzeziński explains:
“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."
In his 1968 article “America in the Technetronic Age,” Brzeziński wrote:
“As I have already noted, it will soon be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and to maintain
up-to-date, complete files, containing even most personal information about the health or personal
behaviour of the citizen, in addition to more customary data.”
"These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities."
In his article Brzeziński went on to write:
“Power will gravitate into the hands of those who control the information, and can correlate it most rapidly”
So far, we can say that the technocrats, as well as Brzeziński and “his friends,” openly sought to build a
society in which citizens are constantly and deliberately manipulated, controlled, and directed.
And all of this is done using the latest psychological insights and state-of-the-art technology.
How is it that the implementation of such plans has already advanced so far and that the introduction of
“15-minute cities” is already being publicly debated?!
If one considers the connections between Brzeziński, Rockefeller, and Rothschild to
high-degree freemasonry, the answer is obvious.
They are part of a global conspiracy. David Rockefeller confidently admits this in his memoirs:
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family
and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated, global
political and economic structure, one world if you will.”
"If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I'm proud of it."
What does this secret conspiracy consist of? David Rockefeller says:
“It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to
the bright lights of publicity during those years.
But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.
The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the
national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzeziński and so on spent their entire lives working to build this “one world”
under the rule of a parasitic “elite” and “global bankers.”
To this end, Brzeziński & Co. founded many organizations and institutions that now, like a
spider's web, extend across the entire world.
These institutions—whether they are banks, universities, think tanks, or global organizations such as the United
Nations—now control nearly every area of life in our world.
Among other things, Brzeziński was a key figure in the Trilateral Commission, the Atlantic
Council, and the Council on Foreign Relations.
These are freemasonry organisations that serve as their hub.
Volunteer Kla.TV staff members have documented well-known institutions and their ties to
high-degree freemasonry on the website vetopedia.org.
It soon becomes clear that there really is a conspiracy—namely, a conspiracy by high-ranking
freemasons to own and control the entire world.
Zbigniew Brzeziński and David Rockefeller were also high-degree freemasons:
Brzeziński founded the masonic lodge “Lux ad Orientem” (Light Toward the East) in 1967 and the "Maat" lodge in 2004.
Together with high financier David Rockefeller, global strategist Henry Kissinger, and Edmond Adolphe de
Rothschild, a scion of the Rothschild dynasty, Brzeziński founded the “Three Eyes” lodge in 1968.
David Rockefeller was also a member of the “Horus Lodge.”
The Rothschilds and Rockefellers, along with the Windsors—that is, the British royal
family—are at the very top of the masonic pyramid:
The freemasons on this level openly profess their belief in Satan as the “god of this world.”
So much for the network and its intentions.
Of course, it is difficult to explain these plans aiming at world domination to a freedom-loving global population.
The high-degree freemasons therefore sought and found a way to gradually steer the world's population toward technocracy.
By misusing sustainability as deception and a business model, they exploit people’s longing for a healthy planet.
After all, everyone will agree that we cannot continue down this path of destroying the Earth.
However, the only solution that is offered over and over again is “sustainability.”
This term, which carries very positive connotations, set people’s efforts to save the planet on the wrong
track, from the very beginning. More on that in a moment.
The term sustainability also traces its origins back to an idea put forward by the early technocrats.
Patrick Wood explains the connection between technocracy and “sustainable development” as follows:
“It is true that the literal term of ‘sustainable development’ was not coined by the original technocrats [...].
The fact of the matter is that "sustainable development" is conceptually identical to technocracy's “balanced load”.
In short, the heartbeat of Technocracy is Sustainable Development.
"It calls for an engineered society where the needs of mankind are in perfect balance with the resources of nature."
The “perfect balance” between human needs and natural resources is, in fact, the very definition of sustainability.
The connection between technocracy and sustainability becomes even clearer by taking a
closer look at the co-founder of Technocracy Inc.:
Marion King Hubbert (1903–1989). Hubbert worked for the Amerada Petroleum Company, taught at Columbia University, and held an
executive position with the oil and natural gas company Shell.
In 1974, as part of his “Peak Oil Theory,” he predicted that, assuming production levels remained
constant, global oil reserves would be exhausted by 1995.
Although this prediction did not come true, it nevertheless instilled fear and panic among the population and gave
oil magnates the opportunity for rising oil prices and wars.
With his predictions, Hubbert, for example, played right into the Rockefellers’ hands, since the Rockefeller
dynasty had controlled most of the global oil market since 1891.
Hubbert's theories and predictions led to calls for a "green" economy and an energy transition.
Since then, he himself has been regarded as the founding father of the environmental sustainability movement.
However, what is the snag with this whole sustainability thing?
The Rockefeller Foundation's 1969 annual report highlighted the insidious ideology behind the alleged scarcity of
resources and the concept of sustainability derived from it:
This report concludes that humans are causing massive destruction of their own environment.
In this way all of humanity is held responsible for environmental destruction and is made to feel guilty for
being responsible for the destruction of their own habitat.
Isn't this an insidious form of mass manipulation designed to then steer people toward the new sustainability agenda?
After all, why haven't the biggest contributors to and ruthless profiteers of environmental destruction—the large
multinational corporations and their shareholders— been investigated and held accountable up to this day?
How is it possible that the largest shareholders of mining and natural resource companies—causing massive environmental
destruction and exploiting resources—are not held accountable, but instead the environmental destruction is
denounced as part of the ideology of sustainability and the blame is being passed on to everyone else?
Why aren't large defense contractors held accountable for their massive environmental destruction, which
has serious consequences for all life on the planet?
As we all know, war is one of the greatest destroyers of habitats!
Why aren't the big tech companies, with their gigantic data centers, being scrutinized more closely?
Their energy needs far exceed those of ordinary people. A single data center alone consumes as much energy as a major city.
Why isn't there a public discussion about the endless demand for resources required for all kinds of high-tech projects,
such as the construction of robots or the tens of thousands of satellites in space launched by technocrat Elon Musk?
For such endeavours, entire regions are being devastated.
Why doesn't the mainstream press report on the massive weather manipulation by the military
and on the resulting environmental pollution?
Instead, we are continuously exposed to this hypocritical talk of “sustainability.”
Let’s get back to the Rockefeller Dynasty. How did this family manage to establish the “sustainability ideology”
as the foundation for the concepts of “green” economy, climate policy, UN Agenda 21, and Agenda 2030?
The family turned to its various family foundations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation or the Rockefeller Family Fund, which,
under the guise of philanthropy and bypassing the state, provided financial support to individual actors and organizations.
Here are a few examples, though they represent only a small fraction of the many
financial contributions made by the Rockefellers.
First, in 1969, the Rockefeller Foundation invested $2.1 million in new research and education programs to promote its
ideology of supposedly “man-made” environmental destruction.
Second, in 1974, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund provided $500,000 for the founding of the “Environmental Research Organization
for Sustainable Development,” the Worldwatch Institute.
Third, in 1987, the Rockefeller Family Fund established the Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA). This
organization coordinates funding from foundations and distributes it to environmental advocacy groups.
The website influencewatch.org notes that the EGA has become “a powerful consortium of agenda-setting foundations” that today
supports a large number of environmental activist organizations.
Over the past 50 years, the environmentalists supported by the Rockefellers in this way have skillfully
instilled a sense of both individual and collective guilt regarding environmental damage.
For example, they warned that the Earth would soon be struck by an ice age.
Later, they claimed that driving vehicles with internal combustion engines and producing too much carbon dioxide
would lead to a dangerous rise in the earth's temperature.
Fourth: At the Rockefellers' initiative think-tanks and global organizations were founded —for
example, the Club of Rome and the United Nations.
In 1939, the Rockefeller Foundation provided $350,000 in funding for studies that, among other
things, led to the founding of the United Nations.
Anyone spending that much money to establish the UN naturally expects to benefit from it:
The United Nations launched Agenda 21 in 1992.
The purpose of Agenda 21 is to promote the ideology of sustainability in all areas.
Agenda 21 is followed by Agenda 2030. Here’s what educator Tim Gielen has to say about it:
“In 2015, the UN presented its controversial Agenda 2030, which is almost identical to Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset.
In their own words, the UN, like Schwab, wants to ensure that by 2030, poverty, hunger,
environmental pollution, and disease no longer exist on Earth.
It sounds like a sympathetic plan—until you read the fine print.
You see, the idea is, that Agenda 2030 is going to be paid for by us, the citizens."
At this point, it is worth recalling the technocrats’ goal. In order to establish a technocracy, they planned to gain
control over all raw materials, companies, factories, industries—indeed, even all property owned by citizens.
The sustainability agenda makes it possible.
Rosa Koire, author of *Behind the Green Mask*, sums it up like this.
“UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan. It's the blueprint to inventory and control all land, all water, all
plants, all minerals, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, all
energy, all education, and all human beings in the world.”
"INVENTORY AND CONTROL."
All this goes together well with the oft-cited vision for the future put forth by the World Economic Forum
(WEF)—the lobbying organization representing the world’s most powerful and wealthiest people:
"By the year 2030, you will own nothing and be happy."
By this, the WEF refers, of course, to the world's population and not their own kind.
So what is the ultimate purpose of the concept of sustainability?
Ottmar Edenhofer, former co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , provided the answer in 2010:
“First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community.
But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.
One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.
This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."
In conclusion, it must be noted: Whenever there is talk of sustainability or sustainable development—whether it is sold to
the public as climate policy, the green economy, UN Agenda 21, or Agenda 2030—it is actually about total control of global resources
and the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich.
Sustainability is the means of dispossessing most people and placing all resources and all land in the hands of high
finance, in order to subsequently establish a technocracy.
According to technocracy expert Jesse Smith, “Technocracy and technology are like a hand and a glove of
the new order that is established around the world.”
Dear viewers, no matter how insidious their plan for world domination—which was devised and is being carried out
by high-degree freemasons—it still requires the general public, who can either go along with it or resist it.
Canadian propaganda researcher Jason Christoff said in an interview:
“This group we’re dealing with has notoriously low IQ; they don’t have any new tricks in their bag.”
It's all the same old tricks. They're not creative.
They do have flaws. And their main flaw is that they don't have the power to do anything to us by force.
[...] They have to psychologically manipulate us and poison us into a state of weakness where we volunteer for our own slavery.
[...] "The only power they have is the power we give them, and it can be siphoned off easy."