Dieser aufrüttelnde Artikel über die sehr große Wahrscheinlichkeit einer beabsichtigten Etablierung einer Weltwährung als Carbon-Kredite, also der Loslösung vom Geld hin zu monatlich zu erneuernden Ansprüchen auf Carbon-Verbrauch, ist von einem Mann geschrieben, der bereits einige tiefer als gewöhnlich schürfende und dem entsprechend beachtete Artikel zu Wirtschaftsfragen und Fragen rund um das Finanzsystem in den USA und damit dem in der Welt veröffentlicht hat.
Die von Steven Yates angeführten Zitate sind aussagekräftig genug, ebenso wie der beunruhigende Verweis auf eine hohe Akzeptanzqoute für die Idee des Carbon-Kredits bei den großen Banken, um aufzuzeigen, wie ernst es mit dem Vorhaben gemeint ist, und warum der Klimaschwindel unbedingt weitergeführt werden muss, damit öffentlichkeitswirksam auf weiteren intenrationalen Treffen Entscheidungen hinsichtlich eines zu bewerkstelligenden Konsens in der Carbon-Kredit-Frage getroffen werden können.
Die 3 Teile des Artikels sind in einem relativ einfach zu verstehenden Englisch geschrieben und geben auch einen kurzen geschichtlichen Abriss, der verständlich macht, wie und woraus sich die ideogischen Voraussetzungen für die bei den Eliten zu erwartende breite Akzeptanz eines solchen Vorhabens gestalten.
The idea of a global currency has been kicking around for several years now, most visibly in last year’s G20 meeting in Pittsburgh — a clear sign that the march toward world government, also known as the “new world order,” is very much on track. A new investigation suggests that the global currency won’t be just another euro — a globalized fiat money. Instead, it will be based on carbon, and this will bring it into alignment with a variety of concerns, including fossil fuels depletion (also known as “peak oil”) and anthropogenic climate change (ACC), as well as the belief among the new world order lies that populations need to be monitored and controlled.
Patrick Wood — one-time collaborator with ace investigator Antony Sutton and founder of The August Review — is best known as one of the foremost authorities on the Trilateral Commission. He has here assembled circumstantial evidence that the global elite could soon begin considering a carbon currency as a live option: as, in his words, “the ultimate solution to global calls for poverty reduction, population control, environmental control, global warming, energy allocation and blanket distribution of economic wealth.” To think in these terms would be to revive technocracy, which Wikipedia defines as “a system of government where those who have knowledge, expertise or skills compose the governing body.”
What would result is an economic system based on energy allotments instead of price measured in terms of fiat currencies. The latter are slowly collapsing all over the world as individuals, corporations, and governments all drown in seas of debt accrued from living beyond their means. In other words, in the scenario Wood envisions, the global elite would move to eliminate money, understood as fiat money decoupled from backing by a commodity such as gold, and replace it with a system of carbon credits that would be allocated to every person, possibly monthly.
This would mean “authoritarian and centralized control over all aspects of life, from cradle to grave.” Each individual would receive a unique identifier at birth, possibly in the form of an RFID-embedded identification card. The global ID would follow him or her through life and record the specifics of the person’s schooling, test results, work history, physical location including travel history if any, consumption patterns, health and medical history, and so on. It could not be stolen, since the individual ID would be designed to work only for the person it is assigned to. The global ID could also be implanted under one’s skin. An implant would have the advantage that the person could never lose or misplace it.
Here is Wood’s speculation on how the system might work. “In a nutshell, carbon currency will be based on the regular allocation of available energy to the people of the world. If not used within a period of time, the Currency will expire (like monthly minutes on your cell phone plan) so that the same people can receive a new allocation based on new energy production quotas for the next period.” In other words, there would no point in saving, as with cash. At the end of the cycle, any unused credits would immediately lose their purchasing power.
Wood continues, “Because the energy supply chain is already dominated by the global elite, setting energy production quotas will limit the amount of Carbon Currency in circulation at any one time. It will also naturally limit manufacturing, food production and people movement.”
“Local currencies could remain in play for a time, but they would eventually wither and be fully replaced by the Carbon Currency, much the same way that the Euro displaced individual European currencies over a period of time.”
One can guarantee that there would be intense pressure to embrace carbon currency. This could include economic coercion, e.g., trade restrictions, citizen travel restrictions, etc. Those refusing to use the new currency, either here or abroad, would eventually find themselves unable to obtain food, fuel, or shelter legally. The price tag of noncompliance would be immobilization and impoverishment.
The ideas that grew into technocracy go back at least to the British philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679), author of Leviathan (1651), the first modern treatise in political philosophy. Hobbes believed in the necessity of a strong central government; in the context of his time, a monarchy. At least as important for the development of technocracy, Hobbes was a materialist who believed that the same methods being developed to study the natural order under the phrase natural philosophy could be used to study human beings and their social interactions; i.e., that what would today be called an empirical science of society was possible.
Two French thinkers, Henri de Saint-Simon (1760 – 1825) and Auguste Comte (1798 – 1857), pursued this line of thought further. The latter argued that disciplines such as physics or entire civilizations go through three stages: what he called a “theological or fictitious” stage which appeals for explanations to supernatural agencies such as God, a “metaphysical or abstract” stage in which philosophers spin grand systems out of their imaginations and appeal to non-empirical absolute principles such as those of morality, and a “scientific or positive” stage in which all such schemes are set aside in favor of the methods of empirical science: observation, hypothesis, experimentation, data collection, statistical projections, and so on. Comte believed that scientific results promised a better basis on which to build civilization than either religion or the speculations of philosophers. His system was positive in the sense of being optimistic, or forward looking. Having founded sociology on this basis, he is sometimes regarded as the father of all modern social science as empirical, data-driven, and eschewing notions such as original sin (belongs in the first stage) or abstractions such as private property rights (belongs to the second).
Comte’s positivism influenced later thinkers such as Wilhelm Wundt (1845 – 1920), the founder of the ‘experimental psychology’ of the Leipzig School, and Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970), major British logician and philosopher, Fabian socialist, and promoter of the ‘scientific society’ in works such as The Impact of Science on Society (1952) which consciously distinguishes the kind of education for those designated as elite from what will be dispensed to the masses. One should also mention Edward Bellamy (1850 – 1898), on this side of the Atlantic, who presented a technocratic utopia in his novel Looking Backward (1888), set in the year 2000. Would technocracy remain a utopian pastime, however—or become a public agenda?
In 1919, an organization called the Technical Alliance of North America formed in New York City, headed by consulting industrial engineer Howard Scott (1890 – 1970) and including economist Thorstein Veblen, physicist Richard Tolman, engineer William H. Smythe (who coined the term technocracy) and economist and banker Stuart Chase, among others. They set out to work out the nuts-and-bolts details of applying scientific and engineering achievements to the social universe, especially what they saw as the wasteful use of resources inherent in allowing Americans to make their own choices as sovereign consumers. They began a massive study of the energy and resources of the North American continent — meaning by that the territory extending from Panama to the Arctic Ocean.
Their goal was a planned, systematic blueprint for bringing production and distribution under centralized control. They believed their plan, if implemented, would result in a higher standard of living across the continent along with less waste of non-renewable resources. They had planned to continue their study for four years but the group disbanded in 1921, its work unfinished.
In an interview that year, Howard Scott explained matter-of-factly, “The technicians … are the only group who know how people get things. They are not the only producers, but they are the only ones who know how production is accomplished. Bankers don’t know. Politicians and diplomats don’t know. If these fellows did know, they would have gotten the wheels started before this. They all want production−everybody does; but those who have been running things don’t know how to run them, while those who do know how have not so far considered it their business.”
Technocracy enjoyed a period of popularity in the 1930s as a possible solution to the problems presented by the Great Depression. In 1933, Scott and an ambitious young geophysicist named M. King Hubbert (1903 – 1989) would form Technocracy, Inc. The two of them authored a major work entitled Technocracy Study Course published in 1934. This work became the bible of the movement.
Among their goals was to institute an economic system based on energy allocation instead of price. They proposed to replace money with energy credits. They saw themselves as opposed to every economic system in existence, capitalist or socialist, since each was based on a price system instead of an energy system. Each one — even socialism — involved buying and selling by individuals instead of centralized and monitored allocation of resources. The technocrats believed only the latter could eliminate poverty, for example, as well as ensure that resources are not wasted.
After World War II and the return of prosperity, interest in technocracy waned. Hubbert had earned a Ph.D. in geophysics in 1937, moved to Columbia University to teach the subject, and eventually developed the Hubbert Peak Theory, better known today as Peak Oil: the discovery of new reserves would eventually be outstripped by usage, causing massive increases in energy costs that would eventually destabilize all modern economies tied to fossil fuels.
The technocrats of the 1930s were disadvantaged by a simple fact: the technology to implement their ideas didn’t exist yet. Today, most of it does. And partly because of the popularity of Hubbert’s Peak Oil concept, partly because of the widespread promotion of ACC, and partly because the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression has turned eyes towards the drawbacks of fiat money, technocracy is making a comeback. Websites devoted to the subject exist here and in Canada, and an organization called the Network of European Technocrats formed in 2005 as “an autonomous research and social movement that aims to explore and develop both the theory and design of technocracy.”
All today’s technocrats need is a strategy to create and implement a carbon currency that can be picked up by the global elite. The idea of carbon credits was devised at the time of the Kyoto Protocols. The UK assumed the lead in establishing the first domestic economy-wide trading system. This system has grown rapidly.
Suggestions for developing a carbon currency abound in a growing literature. Patrick Wood’s study provides several examples.
For example, back in 1995 an article appeared in New Scientist entitled, “Toward a single carbon currency”; its author, Judith Hanna, proposed “to set a global quota for fossil fuel combustion every year, and to share it equally between all the adults in the world.”
In 2004, Harvard International Review published “A New Currency” which opined, “For those keen to slow global warming, the most effective actions are in the creation of strong national carbon currencies….”
In 2006 in the UK, Environment Secretary David Miliband suggested imagining “a country where carbon becomes a new currency. We carry bankcards that store both pounds and carbon points. When we buy electricity, gas and fuel, we use our carbon points, as well as pounds. To help reduce carbon emissions, the Government would set limits on the amount of carbon that could be used.”
In 2007, The New York Times published Hannah Fairfield’s “When Carbon Becomes Currency.” Fairfield stated, “To build a carbon market, its originators must create a currency of carbon credits that participants can trade.” She shows how mandatory cap-and-trade policies fit into the larger picture of an economy based on control over energy usage.
In 2008, a global consultancy calling itself PointCarbon partnered with Bank of New York Mellon to assess rapidly growing carbon markets and published their findings as “Towards a Common Carbon Currency: Exploring the Prospects For Integrated Global Carbon Markets.” Wood notes that other elite banks have opened their doors to profits available through carbon markets: JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. In other words, this movement has dominant institutions working quietly on its behalf. (!!!)
On Nov. 9, 2009, the Telegraph (UK) contended in an article revealingly entitled, “Everyone in Britain could be given a ‘carbon allowance,” that, “implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emission.” Here we come full circle, with people issued a unique number they would use when purchasing anything that contributes to their carbon footprint. As with a bank account, they would be sent a statement each month with a record of their usages. “If their ‘carbon account’ hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.”
If we read between the lines, technocracy — both the old and the new — offers familiar utopian themes. Technocracy promises “complete economic security for every man, woman and child from birth to death; complete health care; modern, energy-efficient housing for all; education to the full extent of each individual’s ability; viable mass transit; employment for all who are able to work; careful stewardship of the Continent’s natural resources and environment.”
There is, of course, not a word about individual’s freedom here; nor a realization that real wealth must be produced and cannot simply be wished into existence by the creation of a new currency. There is not the slightest doubt about what F.A. Hayek called “scientism,” which expresses doubt that the methods applicable to the study and manipulation of natural phenomena can be imported into the study of human beings essentially unchanged.
Thus there is no fear that the concentration of power would unleash a totalitarian nightmare akin to that of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, or Orwell’s 1984.
Neither the early technocrats nor their present-day disciples have any interest in national sovereignty. People will not live in sovereign nation states but in Technates.
Readers will have noticed the references to North America as a single political unit, or Technate. Howard Scott and his group were the first advocates of a North American Union before the idea had that name.
Behind the technocratic agenda, though, is the idea, rooted as it is in the materialism of the nineteenth century philosophers, that human nature is exclusively a product of its material environment and is therefore as malleable as potter’s clay and can be changed wholesale by changing the economic arrangements — an idea whose best known exponent was Karl Marx (“from each according to his ability; to each according to his need”).
All that is needed to change human nature is skilled technicians of human behavior who know what interventions to make. For example, technocrats believe that crime can be almost eliminated by ending the price system:
As practically all crime of the Price System results from the attempts of individual to acquire the property of others illegally to alleviate their own insecurity, crime would practically cease to exist in a Technocratic society. Technocracy defines a criminal to be a human being with predatory instincts, living under a Price System, without sufficient capital to start a corporation.
In a Technate, human beings would be treated for the first time in social history, not as willful entities, subject to legalistic prohibitions, restraints and penalizations, but as energy consuming people whose capacities as producers and consumers necessitate the development of the highest state of both capacities in order that human beings may be conditioned to living in a world of plenty where man’s advantage over his fellowmen will no longer be socially profitable.
All worthy social projects are implied in the one big objective of Technocracy, which is to give to every human being adequate economic security.
But in a Technate will human beings still be allowed to ask,
- “What about basic freedoms, such as personal financial privacy or the freedom to travel?”
Today’s technocrats have an answer for those who presently ask,
- “What do you propose to do with those who do not choose to live under technocracy?”
They answer disarmingly, “
- Nothing. We are seeking people who are intelligent and open-minded enough to embrace a new idea. However, deteriorating economic and social conditions will force many people not presently interested to look in our direction.”
Read between the lines here.
The elites who control the flow of resources through the economy now will be able to ensure that those not embracing the new status quo will pay dearly for what is therefore a Pickwickian choice at best.
“In the Technate,” the passage continues, “even the people who are not interested in Technocracy will enjoy the same high standard of living and increased leisure along with greater opportunity for cultural activities. Should they still prefer to live somewhere else, there will be no restriction on emigration.”
But under the world government that technocracy both imagines and requires, the obvious next question:
where will would-be emigrants go? (!!!)
Steven Yates earned his Ph.D. in philosophy in 1987. He is the author of one book, Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (San Francisco: ICS Press, 1994) and numerous articles both in academic journals and elsewhere. He has taught philosophy at Clemson University, Auburn University, Wofford College, the University of South Carolina, Southern Wesleyan University–Columbia, and Midlands Technical College, and has held fellowships with or worked on projects with the Institute for Humane Studies, the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Acton Institute for Religion and Liberty.