56 • RANGE MAGAZINE • SPRING 2017

Futurist and scholar Dr. Parag Khannais a rising academic star in highdemand among the global elite. He is

young, handsome, educated, articulate and,most importantly, he has a radical plan for usas explained in his new book, “Technocracyin America: Rise of the Info-State.”

How radical?Well, Khanna (who is a senior research

fellow at the National University of Singa-pore) recommends, for instance, that theSenate be abolished, the Constitution beturned over to the Supreme Court, and a“collective presidency” be established. Hesees a borderless world where city-states willbecome the new organizational blocks ofsociety. The new economy will be “green,”where all resources are carefully meted outand alternative green energy completelyreplaces “brown” hydrocarbon-based energy.

Okay, put aside what you know aboutMarxism, communism, socialism and fas-cism. Although there are overlaps and simi-larities, technocracy is none of these, butonce you understand it, you will never seethe world quite the same again.

Technocracy actually has a long historyin the United States, dating back to 1932when it was carefully codified by prominentscientists and engineers who were employedat Columbia University in New York City.They surmised that capitalism and freeenterprise were dead, thanks to the GreatDepression, and that it was up to them todesign a replacement economic system thatwould be run by scientists and engineers.

Technocracy would create scientificallyengineered, micro-managed cities, linkedtogether in organizational units called tech-nates. Citizens therein would receive auto-matic and regular allocations of energycurrency to spend on goods and servicespriced according to the energy that wasrequired to make them. Technocrats saw thisas the perfect “balanced system.”

Private property? Forget it. All physicalresources would be carefully and efficient-ly managed by the technocrat rulers, forthe good of all the people. Your suitableeducation and employment would bedetermined by the scientific analysis of

your capabilities and potential. Not unsur-prisingly, early technocrats hated politicians,whom they blamed for the inept misman-agement of society. In 1933, one prominenttechnocrat even urged President-electFranklin Delano Roosevelt to simply declarehimself dictator in order to dump Congressand summarily set up technocracy in NorthAmerica.

The definition of technocracy appearedin The Technocrat in 1938: “Technocracy isthe science of social engineering, the scientif-ic operation of the entire social mechanismto produce and distribute goods and servicesto the entire population.”

This can be summarized as “a scientificdictatorship.”

Technocracy Rebirthed As Sustainable DevelopmentBy the end of the ’30s, America caught on tothe radical nature of technocracy and gener-ally rejected it, especially as World War IIbegan to pull the world out of economicdepression. For almost 30 years thereafter, itwas ignored as just another has-been curiosi-ty of history.

That is until 1970, when a young profes-sor at Columbia University, ZbigniewBrzezinski, wrote a book called “BetweenTwo Ages: America’s Role in the Tech-

netronic Era” that was tightly correlated tohistoric technocracy. Financier David Rock-efeller quickly recognized Brzezinski’sgenius and wrapped him into co-foundingthe elitist Trilateral Commission in 1973.Their goal was to create a new internationaleconomic order.

Rockefeller and Brzezinski subsequentlypicked less than 300 academics, bankers,industrialists, media representatives andpoliticians from North America, Europeand Japan to accomplish the task. Theypromoted interdependence betweennations, restructured governments and har-monized global trade regulations throughtrade agreements.

In 1983, the United Nations asked Trilat-eral Commission member Gro HarlemBrundtland from Denmark to create andchair an “independent” task force called theWorld Commission on Environment andDevelopment, more commonly knowntoday as the Brundtland Commission. Hergoal was to create a doctrine that wouldunite and engage countries to pursue sus-tainable development. Brundtland finishedher work in 1987 with the publication of abook, “Our Common Future,” which elevat-ed sustainable development as a new globalmantra that subsequently spread like wild-fire. The United Nations itself explained

TechnocracyIt’s all about control over all people, all resources, and all wealth.

By Patrick Wood

“DEL

USI

ON

DW

ELLE

R,”

CH

ARC

OAL

& P

ENC

IL O

N P

APER

© L

AUR

IE L

IPTO

N

SP17 1.18 PM.q_RANGE template.q 1/18/17 2:24 PM Page 56

SPRING 2017 • RANGE MAGAZINE • 57

how: “The Brundtland Report laid thegroundwork for the convening of the EarthSummit in Rio de Janeiro five years later.Held in June 1992, the Rio Summit was thelargest environmental conference ever orga-nized, bringing together more than 30,000participants, including more than one hun-dred heads of state.”

Of course, this was the very meeting thatproduced the infamous Agenda 21 doctrineknown as the “Agenda for the 21st Century.”Blessed by Trilateral President George H.W.Bush in Rio and from these not-so-humblebeginnings a plethora of strategically relatedprograms have sprung forth: Biodiversity,Green Economy, Smart Growth, Smart Grid,Common Core Education Standards, SmartCities, Global Warming, Cap and Trade, NewUrban Agenda, the 2030 Agenda, and so on.

Technocracy Is Sustainable DevelopmentAs I have thoroughly docu-mented in my book, “Technoc-racy Rising: The Trojan Horseof Global Transformation,”sustainable development is aneconomic system that is deeplyrooted in historic technocracyfrom the 1930s; indeed, thetwo terms are virtually synony-mous. Both are resource-based, demanding 100 percentcontrol over all productionand consumption with energyplaced at the center of every-thing. Property rights are sacri-ficed for the global commongood, and technocrats (aka sci-entists and engineers) will runthe whole societal machine like a finelytuned Swiss watch. To say that this cabal oftechnocrats is an egotistical bunch is anunderstatement.

Until the release of Khanna’s book, theglobal elite have avoided using the wordtechnocracy. Khanna has not only substan-tially validated my “Technocracy Rising” andits conclusions, but he has also revealed theultraradical nature of technocracy.

Someone will say, “Surely they can’treplace an entire economic system!” Really?Someone should tell that to the UnitedNations. In 2015, its head of climatechange at the U.N., Christiana Figueres,clearly stated: “This is the first time in thehistory of mankind that we are setting our-selves the task of intentionally, within a

defined period of time, to change the eco-nomic development model that has beenreigning for at least 150 years, since theindustrial revolution.”

There is nothing to read between thelines here. The United Nations has literallydeclared war on free enterprise and capital-ism: it has a plan, a specific timetable, directintent, and legions of willing technocrats tobring it about (many paid for by Americantaxpayers).

More recently, the U.N.’s Agenda 2030

(officially called 2030 Agenda) and NewUrban Agenda agreements have been adopt-ed by more than 190 nations of the world.

Agenda 2030 established the 17 new andexpanded Sustainable Development Goalsfor the next 15 years, while the New UrbanAgenda sets the standards for Smart Citiesthroughout the world. Between the two ini-tiatives, U.N. leaders are seeking to control100 percent of all production and 100 per-cent of all consumption. They, in turn, willutilize science and the scientific method torestructure and control the entire globaleconomy and society.

Clear and Present DangerPeople will not be moved to action on anyissue, no matter how serious, unless they

become sufficiently alarmed. The reason thattechnocracy (aka sustainable development)continues to saturate America is becausepeople are not yet alarmed and see no clearand present danger. Some are off fightingcommunism and socialism while missingtechnocracy altogether.

Dr. Khanna would have us believe thatdemocracy in America is broken, but heoffers no acknowledgement that the UnitedStates is actually a constitutional republicand not a democracy. Still, broken as hethinks we are, he blithely prescribes technoc-racy and a radical restructuring of our gov-ernmental system as the solution to fix allpossible ills.

Be assured that Khanna has not written“Technocracy in America” for such com-moners as the American public. No, he is

addressing the global elite whohave been pushing technocra-cy since at least 1973. These arethe people who think theirship is about to come in,whose train is about to arrive,whose plane is about to land.Even as they hang on his everyword, remember that Khannadidn’t dream this stuff up: heis merely bringing it out of thecloset.

While Khanna concludedin TIME that “a bit more tech-nocracy could ensure Ameri-ca’s best days aren’t behind it,”this writer suggests the polaropposite: technocracy willdestroy America as a nationand as a culture. It will tramplefreedom and liberty.

If there is any good news, it is that Amer-icans became sufficiently alarmed in the1930s to pointedly reject technocracy andthus saved themselves from the certaintyranny of scientific dictatorship. Today, it’syour opportunity to reject it again.

Be warned! Be alarmed! ■

Patrick Wood is an author and lecturerspecializing in globalization for 40 years.His most recent book, “Technocracy Rising:The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation,”is available at Amazon.com and Technocra-cy.News. He is also founder and editor-in-chief of Technocracy News and Trends(Technocracy.News), which curates newsfrom around the world related to technocracyand its various programs. Please support him.

Parag Khanna proposes a “direct technocracy” for America with a radical neworganizational structure, paving the way for the United Nations and thetechnocrat elite to grab absolute control over our entire economy, all resourcesand all citizens, while throwing America into a data-driven scientific dictatorship.

Dr. Parag Khanna is aCNN global contributorand senior research fellowin the Centre on Asia andGlobalisation at the LeeKuan Yew School of PublicPolicy at the NationalUniversity of Singapore.

SP17 1.18 PM.q_RANGE template.q 1/18/17 2:24 PM Page 57