Is Global Technocracy Inevitable Or Dangerously Delusional?

Is Global Technocracy Inevitable Or Dangerously Delusional?

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

The bewildering truth behind human technological enslavement is that it is impossible without the voluntary participation of the intended slaves. People must welcome technocracy into their lives in order for it to succeed. The populace has to believe, blindly, that they cannot live without it, or that authoritarianism by algorithmic consensus is “inevitable.”

For example, the average person living in a first world economy voluntarily carries a cell phone everywhere they go at all times without fail. To be without it, in their minds, is to be naked, at risk, unprepared and disconnected from civilization. I grew up in the 1980s and we did just fine without having a phone on our hip every moment of the day. Even now, I refuse to carry one.

Why? First, as most people should be aware of by now (the Edward Snowden revelations left no doubt), a cell phone is a perfect technocratic device. It has multilayered tracking, using GPS, WiFi routers, and cell tower triangulation to track your every step. Not only that, but it can be used to record your daily patterns, your habits, who your friends are, where you were on any given day many months or years ago.

Then there’s the backdoor functions hidden in app software that allows governments and corporations to to access your cell’s microphone and camera, even when you think the device is shut off. The private details of your life could be recorded and collated. In a world where privacy is being declared “dead” by boasting technocrats, why help them out by carrying something that listens to everything you say and chronicles everything you do?

Globalists often openly admit that the dynamic of global tracking and the end of anonymity is about willful participation. In a 2023 Swiss TV interview former head of the WEF, Klaus Schwab, made this statement:

Schwab was discussing his vision of the “new world” and the sacrifices people will have to make to live within it. I would point out that he says “YOU will have to accept total transparency…” not “WE will have to accept total transparency…” He’s not including the elites in his futurist ideal of total surveillance.

Michael F. Neidorff, then-Chairman and CEO of Centene Corporation (a major US health insurer), during a 2017 World Economic Forum (WEF) session in Davos titled “What If: Privacy Becomes a Luxury Good?” asserted that:

“By definition you give up privacy by being involved in something. Big data can be incredibly beneficial, but the fact that it is not anonymised is where the problem emerges…”

The globalist concept of the end of privacy is expanded upon in WEF member Ida Auken’s essay titled: “Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better.” Her paper is the quintessential technocratic propaganda narrative – Similar to the narratives of Soviet futurists early in the Cold War, the elites often lure the public into participation in technocracy by promising them a life of infinite wealth and ease. “One day soon…” they say, “…our technology is going to erase labor, the need for money and the wealth gap.”

That is to say, they all promise the same bullshit about how you won’t have to work, your time will be free and owning property will become superfluous because everything will be handed to you for nothing. Of course, the trade-off is that your life will become an open book for the people in power and your very survival will be completely dependent on their whims. Step out of line, and they can easily push a button and end your existence as you know it.

Every aspect of technocracy requires ever growing dependency, but also a certain level of faith; faith that the technocrats are smarter than you and have your best interests at heart. Most people don’t have that kind of faith in other people, especially government bureaucrats and corporate CEOs. However, I have noticed an unsettling trend of blind faith in Artificial Intelligence.

After all, algorithms are the ultimate objective source, are they not? They have no emotions, so how could they suffer from bias?

Ah, and there’s the big con. As I’ve said for many years now, AI is so overrated it’s mind boggling. The amount of electrical power and human capital being invested into AI is already immense and even more resources will be required for these systems to continue “evolving”. And yet, no AI has EVER invented anything new without extensive human input at every level. AI does not create autonomously and I question if it ever will.

Why are we pumping so many resources into something that really is nothing more than a glorified search engine? Don’t get me wrong, I realize that AI has great potential as a tool for development. It certainly makes things easier for research and for speeding up projects, but it’s not intuitive and it’s often wrong.

I’ve used apps like ChatGPT and Grok on occasion to find obscure sources for data and quotes, but you already have to know what you’re looking for in order to do this. Every app has lied to me at times, giving false information and unprompted propaganda (Grok at least admits it can provide biased content or admits it was wrong when cornered by conflicting data).

But once again, AI cannot mislead you unless you participate in the delusion that AI in infallible. Sadly, too many people are stumbling into this trap. I see people constantly quote AI without checking sources. They use AI as the source, and this is what globalists want.

If the majority of people on the planet start using AI as the academic or philosophical default, then the globalists win. Every person will get the same answers, which will be programmed by the powers-that-be, and even if those answers are wrong they will be considered correct because no one will have contrary information.

I explored this problem last year in my article “Three Horrifying Consequences Of AI That You Might Not Have Thought About.” Again, participation is the key to enslavement. The human laziness factor is, in a way, giving AI permission to rule over us.

I was recently watching a discussion with Elon Musk at the Saudi Investment Forum launched as an extension of the Saudi 2030 Agenda (it’s basically all the same people as the World Government Summit in Dubai), as well as his comments at the recent Tesla shareholder’s meeting. Musk argued that:

“Long term, the AI is going to be in charge, to be totally frank, not humans… If artificial intelligence vastly exceeds the sum of human intelligence, it is difficult to imagine that any humans will actually be in charge. So we just need to make sure that AI is friendly…”

He also expounded on a rather Utopian vision of the next couple decades (as all futurists do), predicting a world without work, without scarcity and without most human struggles we are accustomed to. It’s a very similar vision sold to the public by elites and corporate moguls predicting a 15 hour work week during the First Industrial Revolution. Musk’s ideal is only different in that he calls for a benevolent AI trained by libertarians rather than an overlord AI trained by globalists.

Bottom line: AI will only “be in charge” if the populace allows it to be in charge. We can shut it all down anytime we like. You can pull your cell phone out of your pocket right now and throw it away, cutting down your digital footprint and becoming virtually invisible compared to yesterday. By extension, society as a whole can say no to AI governance. The question is, will we?

I’ll give Musk the benefit of the doubt for now that he wants AI for good, but I can’t help but point out that the collectivist ideal is always floated on the promise of economic Elysium. The world of ease Musk imagines will probably never exist. I think the system would collapse first.

That is to say, technocracy will be attempted but it will implode when it is discovered that AI is not a miracle drug and that the benefits do not outweigh the loss of freedoms the digital gulag requires. Laziness only works as an opiate for the masses when it does not result in pain. Pain creates motivation, and motivation leads to rebellion.

Furthermore, the energy resources we have right now are in no way capable of fueling the kind of AI renaissance the elites want. Even Musk admits that energy is the ultimate bottleneck and that a 50% to 100% increase in output worldwide would be needed to power future AI development. Alternative estimates call for a 300% increase in energy output.

No large-population country in the world including the US has the kind of grid needed to allow every citizen to own and operate an electric car. Imagine the amount of power required to to employ millions upon millions of AI run robots and machines to take the place of human laborers?

Typical green energy is not going to do this, it’s highly inefficient. Only a vast expansion of nuclear power might do the trick (or fusion if they ever get it right). The economic cost would be unprecedented (hundreds of trillions of dollars). The labor required to generate that kind of energy wealth would mean MORE work for humanity, not less. Meaning more struggle, more anger, and a greater chance of societal breakdown.

I have a lot of problems with futurists, but one thing that bothers me the most is their habit of ignoring the human factor in their technocratic theories. AI running the world is not inevitable, it is contingent on voluntary human compliance, just as everything about technocracy relies on human compliance.

I’m not saying we should be “anti-technology”, just that we can and must be masters of technology. We determine the future, not AI. Technology is peripheral and ultimately irrelevant in comparison to the human experience. If a piece of tech doesn’t actually make our lives better and more free and instead makes our existence a misery, then it should be turned to ashes along with the globalist institutions that demand we “own nothing and be happy.”

Tyler Durden
Sat, 11/22/2025 – 23:20