By this technocratic illusion, the technical experts unintentionally confer new powers and legitimacy on the state as the entity that will implement the technical solutions. The economists who advocate the technocratic approach have a terrible naïveté about power—that as restraints on power are loosened or even removed, that same power will remain benevolent of its own accord. What used to be the divine right of kings has in our time become the development right of dictators. The implicit vision in development today is that of well-intentioned autocrats advised by technical experts, what this book will call authoritarian development. The word technocracy (a synonym for authoritarian development) itself is an early twentieth-century coinage that means “rule by experts.”
===The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor (William Easterly)
Should the Trilateral Commission have this kind of access and influence within the Department of Defense? Given their goal of creating a “New International Economic Order” (which is Technocracy, or Sustainable Development), certainly not.
Ashton Carter, currently Obama’s Secretary of Defense, is a poster-boy for Technocracy. He is also a member of the elitist Trilateral Commission that has been promoting global Technocracy since its founding in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Carter has quietly assembled the Defense Innovation Advisory Board, which he claims will “advise the Pentagon on technology innovation issues.” As he recently announced new members, he stated,
[The board] “is charged with keeping DoD imbued with a culture of innovation in people, organizations, operations, and technology, to support people who innovate, those creative figures in our department who are willing to try new things, fail fast, and iterate; and also to ensure that we’re always doing everything we can to stay ahead of potential adversaries.”
According to Defense News, the members are:
- Eric Schmidt, executive chairman, Alphabet Inc. (DIAB chair)
- Jeff Bezos, president, chairman and CEO, Amazon Inc.
- Adam Grant, professor, Wharton School of Business
- Danny Hillis, computer theorist and co-founder, Applied Inventions
- Reid Hoffman, co-founder, LinkedIn; and partner, Greylock Partners
- Walter Isaacson, president and CEO, Aspen Institute
- Eric Lander, president and founding director, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard
- Marne Levine, chief operating officer, Instagram
- J. Michael McQuade, senior vice president for science and technology, United Technologies
- William McRaven, chancellor, University of Texas System
- Milo Medin, vice president, Access Services, Google Capital
- Richard Murray, professor, California Institute of Technology
- Jennifer Pahlka, founder, Code for America
- Cass Sunstein, professor, Harvard Law School
- Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist
While all of these could accurately be singled out as Technocrats, Carter has stacked the board with three of his elitist cronies from the Trilateral Commission.
Eric Schmidt is the head of Alphabet, which includes Google. Schmidt admittedly seeks to use technology to control the entire planet, and is the leading proponent of Transhumanism.
Walter Isaacson is a long-time member of the Trilateral Commission and is President of the Aspen Institute, formerly the Aspen Institute For Humanistic Studies. Aspen has indoctrinated tens of thousands of corporate executives and has been tightly intertwined with the Trilateral Commission since 1973.
Marne Levine, the chief operating officer at Instagram, formerly served as Vice President of Global Public Policy for Facebook. At Facebook, Levine worked with governments and organizations to understand and adapt to its technology and global policies.
Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon, Inc., is another tech titan who has dreams of taking over the world economically.
Collectively, these people represent many other companies and organizations through participation in their boards of directors.
Should the Trilateral Commission have this kind of access to and influence within the Department of Defense? Given their goal of creating a “New International Economic Order” (which is Technocracy, or Sustainable Development), certainly not.