Things are getting tighter and tighter for freedom-loving people:
In various countries around the world, control over people is becoming increasingly strict.
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 easily curtailed.
Oxford is set to launch the program as early as this year: The city will be divided into six 15-minute zones.
Travel between the zones is free for residents only 100 days a year.
A surveillance 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 more
than a surveillance state enabled by technology!
Such a dictatorial form of government had long been the goal of self-proclaimed would-be world rulers.
For decades, they have been working on a new form of government known as technocracy.
The following program exposes the driving forces behind the technocratic movement, its
dangerous plans, and its insidious methods.
Let's start at the beginning, with the founding and goals of the Technocracy Movement.
In the winter of 1918, Howard Scott, an American, founded the so-called Technical Alliance.
The members of the Technical Alliance shared the conviction that democracy, national sovereignty, and the market
economy had failed and must be replaced by an unelected rule of engineers and technical experts.
They called for society to be reshaped according to the principles of science and technology.
Your new economic and monetary system should be based on the controlled distribution and regulated consumption of energy.
To this end, they have already developed “energy certificates,” also known as “energy distribution maps.”
These should include all personal information for each citizen—that is, their age, gender, occupation, place of
residence, an energy allocation, an overview of purchases made, and the issuance and expiration dates of the certificates.
Energy certificates served as the new currency.
That sounds very much like a precursor to the globally envisioned e-ID for every citizen, linked
to a basic income in digital central bank money.
This system is 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 Technat would form an “independent, self-sustaining geographical unit.”
The government would then have control over all raw materials, companies, factories, and industries within the Technat,
as well as comprehensive access to the population's property.
But who was the founder of the Technical Alliance?
Let's take a closer look at Howard Scott. Was he a visionary, or was he more of 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.
An eyewitness 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 for could not yet come into being.”
"First, there would have to be experiments by the left and experiments by the right, ..."
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 major problems with all of this is that your computers will render your accountants and engineers obsolete,
and that they will also render your managers, workers, and employees obsolete—which means even more power
for all computer-controlled monitoring mechanisms.”
Could Scott have known back in 1961 where things would end up today?
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 in 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.
Among other things, the Rockefeller family’s takeover and transformation of the medical
sector was carried out from Columbia University:
A shift away from natural remedies toward the chemical pharmaceutical industry.
Starting in 1910, the Rockefellers used this to create a massive market for their chemical,
petroleum-based products in the medical field.
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 Masonic 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 aimed at 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 exercised and directed by a continental governing body, […]”
What claims do they make regarding technocracy?:
“This is a new method of social governance, (…) Only technocracy can achieve this—the
scientific control of all social functions.”
“Technocracy is the science of social engineering …”
Social engineering refers to manipulation techniques designed to elicit specific behaviors from people.
According to Technocracy Inc., the end product is “a continental system of human conditioning.” This
refers to 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 technetronic age is characterized by the gradual emergence of a more tightly controlled society.”
"Such a society would be ruled by an elite that is not bound by traditional values."
How does the elite control the citizens? Brzeziński explains:
“Unconstrained by traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political goals by using
the latest modern techniques to influence public behavior and keep 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 exercise nearly complete surveillance over every citizen and to maintain
up-to-date, comprehensive files that, in addition to the more common data, even contain highly personal
information about citizens’ health or personal behavior.”
"These files will be available to the authorities for immediate access."
Brzeziński went on to write in the article:
“Power will pass into the hands of those who control information and can connect the dots the fastest.”
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 is already so far along, and that the introduction of
“15-minute cities” is already being debated publicly?!
If one considers the connections between Brzeziński, Rockefeller, and Rothschild to
high-degree Freemasonry, the answer is obvious.
You are part of a global conspiracy. David Rockefeller confidently admits this in his memoirs:
“Some even believe that we are part of a secret conspiracy working against the interests of the United States, and they
label my family and me as internationalists—conspirators with others around the world to build a more integrated, global
political and economic structure—a single world, if you will.”
"If that's the charge, then I plead guilty—and I'm proud of it."
What is this secret conspiracy? David Rockefeller says:
“It would never have been possible for us to develop a plan for the world if we had been in the public eye during those years.”
But the world is on a complex and carefully planned path toward world government.
"The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and the world's bankers is certainly preferable
to the national sovereignty of the past centuries."
David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzeziński & Co. 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 aspect 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 Masonic lodges that serve as their hubs.
Volunteer Kla.TV staff members have documented well-known institutions and their ties to
High-Degree Freemasonry on the website vetopedia.org.
It quickly 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-ranking Freemasons:
Brzeziński founded the Masonic lodge “Lux ad Orientem” (Light Toward the East) in 1967 and the lodge “Maat” in 2004.
Together with high-finance executive David Rockefeller, global strategist Henry Kissinger, and a scion of the
Rothschild dynasty, Edmond Adolphe de Rothschild, 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 floor 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 for world domination to a freedom-loving global population.
The high-ranking Freemasons therefore sought and found a way to gradually steer the world's population toward technocracy.
By misusing sustainability as a 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 ever offered is “sustainability.”
This term, which carries very positive connotations, set people’s rescue efforts on the wrong track
from the very beginning. More on that in a moment.
Sustainability also traces its origins to an idea put forward by the early technocrats.
Patrick Wood outlines the connection between technocracy and “sustainable development” as follows:
“It is true that the term ‘sustainable development’ was not coined by the original technocrats [...].
The fact is that sustainable development is conceptually identical to the “balanced burden” of technocracy.
In short, sustainable development is the lifeblood of technocracy.
"It calls for a society designed so that the needs of humanity are in perfect balance with nature's resources."
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 when one takes 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 at 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 reasons to raise oil prices and wage wars.
With his predictions, Hubbert, for example, played right into the Rockefellers’ hands, since the Rockefeller
dynasty has 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 has been regarded as the founding father of the environmental sustainability movement.
But what's the catch 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 would cause massive destruction to their own environment.
So they immediately hold all of humanity responsible for environmental destruction and make them feel guilty for
being responsible for the destruction of their own habitat.
Isn't this a insidious form of mass manipulation designed to steer people toward a 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 so far?
How is it possible that the largest shareholders of mining and natural resource companies—which cause massive environmental
destruction and exploit resources—are not held accountable, but instead the environmental destruction is denounced as part of
the ideology of sustainability and 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?
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 the technocrat Elon Musk?
To achieve this, entire regions are being devastated.
Why doesn't the mainstream press cover all the weather manipulation by the military
and the resulting environmental pollution?
Instead, we keep hearing this seemingly 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 the “green” economy, climate policy, UN Agenda 21, and Agenda 2030?
The family turned to its various family foundations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Family Fund, which,
under the guise of philanthropy, provided financial support to individuals and organizations bypassing the government.
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 in support of 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: Think tanks and global organizations were also founded at the initiative of the Rockefellers—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 who spends 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 unveiled 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 there will be no more poverty,
hunger, environmental pollution, or disease on Earth.
That sounds like a good plan—until you read the fine print.
"The idea is, in fact, that Agenda 2030 is supposed 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:
“UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the globally implemented action plan for taking stock of and controlling all land, all
water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all structures, all means of production, all energy, all
education, all information, and all people in the world.”
"INVENTORY AND INSPECTION."
This also ties in 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 is, of course, referring to the world's population and not to its 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, the industrialized nations have essentially dispossessed the international community.”
But we must make it clear that, through climate policy, we are in effect redistributing the world's wealth.
We must dispel the illusion that international climate policy is the same as environmental policy.
"That has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore—with issues like
deforestation or the hole in the ozone layer."
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 over 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 taking hold around the world.”
Dear viewers, no matter how insidious their plan for world domination—which was devised and is being carried out
by high-ranking 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 a notoriously low IQ; they don’t have any new tricks up their sleeves.”
It's always the same old tricks. They're not creative.
They have weaknesses. And their greatest weakness is that they don't have the power to harm us by force.
[...] They must psychologically manipulate us and reduce us to a state of weakness in which we willingly submit to slavery.
[...] "The only power they have is the power we give them, and that can easily be taken away from them."