Technocracy Ascending-Part 5: The Common Good Utopia?

by Jesse Smith | Apr 21, 2025

In Technocracy Ascending Part 4, Dark Enlightenment, the Neoreaction(NRx) movement, and accelerationism were exposed as the ideological forces behind the technocrats in the Trump administration. This installment investigates how both Eastern and Western technocrats are creating high-tech utopian societies that supposedly advance the common good of all.

Howard Scott (left), Technocracy Inc. recruits (right) – Source: Technocracy Technate Picture Archive

Howard Scott of Technocracy Inc. and his merry band of technocrats envisioned an efficiently run system of regional government incorporating a territorial expanse of countries as far south as Panama and north as Canada, known as the North American Technate. It would outlaw politicians and bureaucrats and instead favor rule by experts employing technology to manage all aspects of society, solving the complex problems of human governance. He described it as a system “based solely on scientific principles and incontrovertible scientific facts and can only be carried on along scientific lines.” Constitutional and democratic governance would yield authority to a new class of technical men remaking the government into an automated system fueled by insatiable amounts of data collected about all people and social functions.

The political administration of our national affairs is deemed by Technocracy to be totally inadequate and incompetent, irrespective of which political racketeer does the administering. Politics and the financial racketeering of the Price System are blood brothers conceived in the ages of scarcity along with the oxcart, the sickle, the hoe, and the spade; and, like them, they have become as obsolete and must be consigned to historical antiquity.”

 

– Howard Scott, Radio Address, Feb. 6, 1935 – WEVD, NY, The Words and Wisdom of Howard Scott, Vol. 1, Technocracy Inc., 1989

Modern technocrats like Parag Khanna also believe that democracy is a relic of the past and what America (and the world) needs is “more technocracy—a lot more.” In Technocracy in America: The Rise of the Info State, Khanna further states that:

The way to get there is ideally neither war nor revolution—nor a bout of tyranny—but to evolve America’s political system in a more technocratic direction. Technocratic government is built around expert analysis and long-term planning rather than narrow-minded and short-term populist whims” (p. 7).

Khanna’s long-term planning to arrive at technocratic governance began to accelerate in the 1970s with the Trilateral Commission’s goal of developing a New International Economic Order. China’s rise as an economic power and the shift toward globalization can be directly traced to Trilateral initiatives. In 1933, Harold Loeb, an original Technocracy Inc. devotee (who eventually formed his own Continental Committee on Technocracy), wrote in Life in a Technocracy that technocratic governance was the only solution to the world’s problems. He believed it was inevitable and would emerge through a combined evolution slowly over time, and revolution, through one big final push when conditions were ripe. Given the current state, it seems as though America is now experiencing that final revolutionary push.

In this society of security, material abundance, equality and harmony, man would also have maximum leisure. Since “there is no virtue in human labor,” work will be done “by the most automatic process that can be devised.”

 

– Akin, William E. Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocrat Movement, 1900-1941, University of California Press, 1977, pp. 145

What Scott, Khanna, and Loeb all shared is a belief that technocracy is the one form of government capable of producing optimum good for all. They believed that by focusing on science, automation, data, and surveillance, an era of utmost efficiency, abundant living, and maximum leisure would emerge, despite requiring top-down control and data on everyone and everything down to the smallest detail. The rest of this installment will investigate if they can truly deliver on their utopian promises.

The Globalist Vision of Technocracy – for the Collective Good of All

Imagine a world where the United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are achieved through increased centralized control. The digital revolution allows for unprecedented surveillance (even while you work) and steering of all social and ecological systems. Regional governments emerge and force top-down management of all economic activity through a symbiotic relationship between states, multinational companies, and NGOs. A few corporate monopolies (i.e., too big to fail) employ massive amounts of social, behavioral, and even genetic data along with automation and powerful artificial intelligence (AI) systems to maintain their hold over all industries and people.

In this world, energy is distributed through massive fields of concentrated solar power. Once-thriving family farms are now obsolete, giving way to systems managed by AI, robotics, and swarms of drones called ‘agrobots.’ Real-time ecosystem management produces abundant agricultural products without harming the environment. Strong economic performance produces revenue-sustaining centralized governments, public services, and welfare systems.

Despite the monetary wealth and abundant resources produced, this tightly controlled world comes with significant tradeoffs. Individual rights and personal freedoms are sacrificed for collective interests and the “common good.” Behind the scenes, ruling powers seize control of public discourse, however, most don’t even notice. Citizens wink at how authoritarian governments have become, because their needs are met by the interlocking state-corporate power structure. In previous times this fascist merger was resisted but in this imagined utopia, it’s simply viewed as a pragmatic way of managing a complex world. Since the smart city experience—where everything is interconnected all the time—is very convenient and efficient, not many care about the loss of privacy.

The digital transformation allows governments to predict societal problems, control behavior, encourage sustainable lifestyles through “nudging” and “choice-editing,” and easily identify those who create disorder. A few complain about the “Big Brother” system, alleging that carbon allowances don’t cover their needs. But their dissent is easily neutralized. In some countries, libertarian groups attempt to effect change, but political parties have gone the way of dinosaurs, yielding their power and authority to AI and billionaire tech experts.

This depiction may sound like a book proposal for the next great dystopian fiction novel or a nod to harrowing works of the past. However, it actually describes a world envisioned by the European Environment Agency (EEA), an organization founded in 1994 to support European environmental policy. The EEA has 32 member countries and 6 cooperating countries. It also works closely with the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

Source: The ‘Scenarios for a sustainable Europe in 2050’ project, Imaginary 1

In Imaginary 1: Technocracy for the Common Good, the EEA describes what it believes is a plausible scenario for achieving a sustainable Europe by the year 2050. Though proposed for the European Union (EU), the vision is eerily similar to the Clever Together scenario envisioned by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Global Business Network (GBN) for the entire world. As mentioned in part 2, the Rockefellers have played a large role in planting and watering the seeds of technocratic governance through the United Nations, Trilateral Commission, and philanthropic endeavors.

Clever Together was one of four situations featured in “Scenarios for the Futures of Technology and International Development,” a white paper published in 2010 to “explore the role of technology and the future of globalization” and shed light on the “multiple, divergent ways in which our world could evolve.” This report also contained the Lockstep scenario in which a pandemic engulfed the world in 2012, resulting in draconian laws and increased surveillance with mandatory biometric IDs (e.g., vaccine passports) and face masks becoming commonplace. After having lived through the tyranny of the COVID-19 era, it’s fair to ask whether Lockstep was simply a fictional scenario or a roadmap for increasing authoritarian control over populations.

Source: Scenarios for the Futures of Technology and International Development

Like Technocracy for the Common Good, Clever Together pictures a highly coordinated society forged by computer algorithms, otherwise known as algocracy. While attempting to stave off planetary doom from climate change issues, “systems thinking” and “systems acting” on a global scale become paramount. In this scenario, 2015 was the watershed for countries to collectively address climate issues, culminating in an international agreement in 2017 to curb carbon emissions. The proposed agreements just happened to coincide with the real life implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the related SDGs, and the Paris Agreement, all adopted in 2015.

Clever Together has also proven accurate regarding developments that have accelerated centralization, data collection, surveillance, the demise of nation-states, and the rise of regional governance — all supposedly for the common good. In detailing how global coordination helped bring about new ways to monitor energy use through smart grids, the paper reports that:

…large-scale coordinated initiatives intensified. Centralized global oversight and governance structures sprang up, not just for energy use but also for disease and technology standards. Such systems and structures required far greater levels of transparency, which in turn required more tech-enabled data collection, processing, and feedback… Nation-states lost some of their power and importance as global architecture strengthened and regional governance structures emerged” (emphasis added).

The UN’s own Our Common Agenda report and associated policy briefs solidify and build upon Clever Together, highlighting the need for “a stronger, more networked and inclusive multilateral system, anchored within the United Nations.” The 11 policy briefs cover a wide range of issues from recrafting the international financial architecture to combating disinformation on digital platforms, and more. The flowery language used throughout the documents make the schemes sound so wonderful. However, a deeper dive reveals that these plans will be accomplished at the expense of individual rights, national sovereignty, and America’s constitutional republic.

Source: Countering Disinformation, United Nations

In the globalist vision of technocracy, the world merges together through regional alignments like BRICS, the EU, and Scott’s imagined North American Technate to cooperate on economic, climate, health, technology, legislation, and other sociopolitical domains. This new world order has been fashioned by men like Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller, organizations like the Club of Rome, and initiatives like the UN’s Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030.

Under global technocracy, individual rights and nation-state rule are reduced for the sake of the collective, multilateral world. Peace is achieved as regional powers seek mutual benefit. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) consisting of multinational corporations, governments, and NGOs maintain control over society by advancing the same goals and outcomes. Technology becomes god-like in facilitating global governance through AI, smart cities, wearable and implantable tech, and other Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) innovations “where the physical, digital, and biological worlds merge.”

Recently retired World Economic Forum founder (WEF) Klaus Schwab may have described global technocracy best in an excerpt from his book on Stakeholder Capitalism, which states:

To ensure that both people and the planet prosper, four key stakeholders play a crucial role. They are: governments (of countries, states, and local communities); civil society (from unions to NGOs, from schools and universities to action groups); companies (constituting the private sector, whether freelancers or large multinational companies); and the international community (consisting of international organizations such as the UN as well as regional organizations such as the European Union or ASEAN)” (emphasis added).

Though upholding human rights is discussed, note that individuals are not found in Schwab’s list of stakeholders. The vast majority of people will be expected to comply with whatever public-private partnerships decide is the right course of action to manage society. You can be assured that the technocrats embedded within each of these stakeholder groups will be leading the charge.

Right before our eyes, the world is being transformed into regional autocracies governed by or closely aligned with tech experts. Automated, AI-run societies are rapidly developing where human agency is stripped away and compliance with technocratic dictates is the sole path to survival. This is the globalist vision of technocracy. Mark Carney, Canada’s self-described “global elitist” unelected prime minister, epitomizes global technocracy with key roles across various stakeholders in central banking, environmental, social and governance (ESG), fintech, climate finance and connections to the UN, WEF, Bilderberg Group and a host of additional globalist institutions.

The Anti-Globalist/Populist Vision of Technocracy

In the United States and other countries such as Hungary, India, and Turkey, populism has seemingly offered an alternative to the globalist vision by defending individual rights and democratic principles. In a speech delivered at CPAC Texas in 2022, Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán is quoted as saying:

We have seen what kind of future the globalist, ruling class has to offer. But we have a different future in mind. The globalists can all go to hell…”

In this regard, Donald Trump and fellow populist leaders function as the antithesis of Mark Carney. However, assuming populists like Trump are on the side of everyday people may prove unwise upon closer examination. Once the curtains are peeled back, the EU’s Technocracy for the Common Good and Trump’s “golden age for America” may not look all that different.

As highlighted in part 4, the Dark Enlightenment/Neoreaction (NRx) movement was pioneered by men like Curtis Yarvin and Nick Land. Technocrats connected to the movement are now embedded within Trump’s administration. Whether serving as benefactors, advisers, appointees, or elected leaders, men like Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Marc Andreesen, and JD Vance are steadily advancing technocracy in America under the guise of MAGA/Dark MAGA. Like the globalist version, they’re attempting to create a techno-utopian state where the good of all is promised. Though the terminology and methodology are slightly different, the desired outcomes of the MAGA anti-globalists look very similar to their globalist counterparts.

SMART Cities Relabeled as Network States

In 2022, engineer Balaji Srinivasan, former CTO at Coinbase and partner at Andreesen Horowitz, published “The Network State: How to Start a New Country.” The book challenges the concept of the nation state and proposes a new form of government that begins as a sovereign digital entity before becoming a physical reality. Curiously, it was published on the anniversary of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. His one-sentence description of a Network State defines it as:

a highly aligned online community with a capacity for collective action that crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states.”

The process for establishing a Network State can be boiled down to three steps, including:

1. Create a digital startup society or “parallel establishment” with a recognized founder that exists alongside but is designed to replace a legacy institution (e.g., media and education);
2. Scale the society into a network union with real funding and a defined collective purpose; and
3. Turn the network union into a network archipelago, where physical properties are crowdfunded and connected via the internet in order to achieve diplomatic recognition.

What a million-person Network State looks like on the map. Source: YouTube

Srinivasan’s concept of the parallel establishment. Source: YouTube

Srinivasan, a multimillionaire with a net worth of over $150 million (mostly in Bitcoin), believes that nation-states governed by values based on God and established religions are outdated and ineffective. Labeling God and the nation as “Leviathans” or “prime mover(s) who hover above all,” he insists a third Leviathan will replace them and become even more powerful, saying:

“…in the 1800s you wouldn’t steal because God would smite you, in the 1900s you didn’t steal because the State would punish you, but in the 2000s you can’t steal because the Network won’t let you. Either the social network will mob you, or the cryptocurrency network won’t let you steal because you lack the private key, or (eventually) the networked AI will detect you, or all of the above… the Network is the next Leviathan, because on key dimensions it is becoming more powerful and more just than the State.”

Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, both named WEF Young Global Leaders in 2007 and 2008 respectively, along with the rest of the “PayPal Mafia,” pioneered the concept of digital currency with the intent of replacing the current economic system and physical cash. Their ideas would perhaps spawn a more seditious goal: replacing nation-states with digital startups. Nick Land advanced the gov-corp concept and Curtis Yarvin pushed for Patchwork realms where nation-states are broken up and replaced by Big Tech companies ruled by CEO monarchs. Srinivasan’s Network State builds upon their vision as the model is now spreading its wings with the building of real life, alternative governments (to be discussed later).

The connection between these anti-democratic visionaries was further documented by the New York Times, who reported on the contents of an email Srinivasan sent to Yarvin in 2013. In the email, Srinivasan suggested launching a coordinated effort to censor and dox a Tech Crunch journalist reporting on the ties between Silicon Valley and the Dark Enlightenment movement, saying:

If things get hot, it may be interesting to sic the Dark Enlightenment audience on a single vulnerable hostile reporter to dox them and turn them inside out with hostile reporting sent to *their* advertisers/friends/contacts.”

Years later, Yarvin referenced Srinivasan while penning his own ideas of a startup state in an essay on remaking El Salvador, in which he wrote:

I would make El Salvador a startup state. I would do this by creating a new executive authority that first analyzed the existing civil service, then redesigned it, then supervised it, then incrementally replaced it with its own wholly new organs—reusing the old staff only as individuals, if at all.

 

This ambitious plan would work because the whole new authority would be staffed by international “thugs” (as Balaji Srinivasan likes to say) with world-class executive talent. These killers, who would mostly work remotely (Salvador is blessed by an American timezone), would be the best of North American YC founders, McKinsey veterans, Google engineers, SpaceX rocket scientists, hedge-fund masters, etc.

 

These kinds of people aren’t cheap. But they are efficient…”

Yarvin’s idea to facilitate a makeover of El Salvador’s government involves employing America’s premier technocrats in finance, science, information technology, and consulting including Sam Altman (Y-Combinator [YC]), Sundar Pichai (Alphabet/Google), and Elon Musk (SpaceX). Of course, the list is much broader, but these are some of the major players foisting the anti-globalist version of technocracy upon an unsuspecting population.

Network or “startup states” are a radical concept that if adopted en masse, could make becoming a citizen of another nation almost as simple as choosing a new mobile provider. However, can these visionaries really deliver on their promises, or is there a catch buried deep in the fine print? Are they really providing freedom through digitization and decentralization, or taking advantage of poor countries under the guise of reducing poverty? Are they standing against globalist technocracy or creating a Silicon Valley flavored version of the same thing? A few real life examples may provide the answers.

Próspera and Praxis – Technocratic Network Cities

Built on the concept of the Network State, Próspera is a private, free city located on the Caribbean Island of Roatán off the coast of La Ceiba, Honduras. It was founded by Erick Brimen, a Venezuelan native and U.S. citizen with a military and business background and Guatemalan tech entrepreneur Gabriel Delgado, who both attended college in the U.S. Like Curtis Yarvin, Próspera’s founders believe that governments of the future will be treated as privatized startups.

Próspera is partially funded by Pronomos Capital, a venture capital (VC) fund dedicated to launching charter cities around the world “where the city is the product.” The fund was started by anarcho-capitalist Patri Friedman, grandson of economist Milton Friedman and bankrolled by Peter Thiel, fellow Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale, and Marc Andreesen of Andreesen Horowitz. Balaji Srinivasan has also backed Próspera through the Balaji Fund, established in 2023 with billionaire Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong on board as an investor.

Próspera was established after the passing of a 2013 Honduran law legalizing Zones for Employment and Economic Development, or “ZEDEs.” According to a Rest of World report, ZEDEs are cities inspired by Chinese free trade zones and are “governed by private investors, who can write their own laws and regulations, design their own court systems, and operate their own police forces.” According to Inside Climate News the “ZEDE law drew on the ideas of Paul Romer, an American who would later serve as chief economist at the World Bank and who had been promoting the idea of charter cities as models of development.”

To date, Próspera reports that it has formed more than 200 businesses, has over 1,700 residents from more than 40 countries, and invested over $100 million to catalyze economic growth. Individuals can apply as e-residents much like the system pioneered in Estonia, or become full time residents inside the Próspera ZEDE. According to their website, “Próspera is a startup city with a regulatory system designed for entrepreneurs to build better, cheaper, and faster than anywhere else in the world” with hopes to achieve a population of 38,000 by 2030.

In 2019, Próspera began facing issues with native Hondurans over access to water. When the Crawfish Rock community’s cistern began malfunctioning, locals lost access to running water. Próspera stepped in and connected the village to its own water tank. Residents were initially overjoyed that their taps were again working but soon became incredulous as water bills began arriving from Próspera’s Institute for Excellence foundation (later renamed Próspera Foundation). This was just the beginning of signs indicating that trouble was brewing in paradise.

Locals began protesting against Próspera, claiming employment discrimination and harassment by armed security guards after a series of robberies. Hondurans were also concerned that Próspera would eventually absorb Crawfish Rock and expropriate their land.

Eventually, Brimen cut off water access after accusing the opposing patronato of restricting access to Próspera’s water supply. This strongarm tactic served as a ploy to get the locals to sign a binding agreement locking them into water supplied by the Big Tech city.

After an encounter with police went viral, Brimen’s reputation plummeted. Local politicians began denouncing the ZEDE, leading to its eventual repeal in September 2024 when the Honduran Supreme Court overturned the law.

Since then, Honduras has been entrenched in a legal battle with Próspera who is suing the nation for $10.775 billion along with 14 other investor claims totaling more than $12 billion. Próspera is arguing it has a right to continue operating for at least 10 more years despite the ZEDE law being ruled unconstitutional. Should they win the decision, Honduras would be forced to pay an amount equal to two thirds its annual budget. The case will be decided by an ad-hoc tribunal consisting of mainly corporate lawyers. A Wired story noted that “Tribunals have issued billions of dollars in awards even in cases where corporations violated domestic laws, polluted the environment or trampled on basic human rights.”

Source: ESRI, Paul Horn/Inside Climate News

To date, it does not appear that the court reversal had much of an effect on Próspera’s operations. The technocratic gov-corp entity believes it is “emancipating individuals from the constraints of corruption and cronyism that hinder their potential to pursue their aspirations” and is confronting “the vested interests of a corrupt government seeking to maintain power for political gains…” However, if their lawsuit is successful, it would prove devastating for the citizens of Crawfish Rock and Hondurans in general. Gerardo Torres, Honduras’ vice minister of foreign affairs, told Wired that:

If they somehow make us pay all the money that they’re talking right now, then they’re going to break a state… And then you’re going to see how private corporations can destroy states.”

Local perceptions of the elitist tech paradise nested inside a small island in the West Caribbean are not at all flattering. Luisa Connor and Venessa Cardenas, president and vice president of the Crawfish Rock patronato, feel that the people behind Próspera are a gang of crypto colonialists exploiting the land and local community, stating:

The Próspera ZEDE cropped up out of nowhere one day and we have seen devastating environmental harm to our community ever since. We were not consulted, no one asked if they had permission to build or what the project would entail. We have been in this territory for centuries and the [foreign investors] keep expanding. Since they arrived, the environment has changed. We are experiencing floods for the first time, our river has dried up, threatening many species of plants and animals.”

Trump’s initiative to make America the “world capital of artificial intelligence and crypto” has already been playing out in countries within its sphere of influence through people and organizations connected to Peter Thiel. Próspera is a hotbed for the cryptocurrency and biotech industries. In Próspera, Bitcoin is legal tender and has its own business center called AmityAge. The city also claims to be “one of the most Bitcoin-friendly jurisdictions in the world” despite the fact that crypto has been outlawed in Honduras. Infinita City (formerly Vitalia) is a popup city inside the Próspera ZEDE dedicated to developing biotech solutions with reduced regulations and minimal to no FDA oversight. Much of the research is dedicated to the transhuman goal of life extension. Much of the financial support has come through the Balaji Fund.

Through Minicircle, a gene-therapy biohacking company also backed by the Balaji Fund, visitors can pay $25,000 for an injection that aims to delay aging. Both Sam Altman and Peter Thiel have donated to the company. Thiel believes that the possibility of injecting himself with young people’s blood is “really interesting.” Symbiont Labs, another startup within the city, aims to “help people become self-sovereign cyborgs” by offering subdermal implants and custom-built censors. If the 4IR is so evil, why are the anti-globalists pursuing the same merger of the physical, digital, and biological worlds?

Though Próspera believes it is fostering freedom, innovation, and an alternative to nation-state governance, it’s advancing many of the same initiatives as the globalists they claim to stand against. They also threaten to financially cripple an entire nation, crushing those who stand in their way. Próspera may have done some good in the local community, but for indigenous people, it appears that the negatives far outweigh the positives. As it stands, their way of life has been permanently altered, their well-being threatened, and their very existence put in jeopardy.

Source: Praxis

While Próspera is a well-established Network State, Praxis is still wetting its feet in the alternative governance space. Dryden Brown, a 29-year-old college dropout turned visionary, is the founder and CEO of Praxis. Dubbed a “cryptostate,” Praxis was launched in 2019 and aims to build a biotech friendly, futurist city-state powered by AI and blockchain. Piqued by Donald Trump’s interest in purchasing Greenland during his first term as president, Brown himself tried to purchase the Arctic island nation, but was soundly rebuffed. Brown later pivoted to an undisclosed location in Latin America or the Mediterranean as the headquarters for his future cryptostate.

I went to Greenland to try to buy it

Here’s what happened:

— Dryden (@drydenwtbrown) November 12, 2024

Like Próspera, Praxis owes its existence to the Thiel-backed Pronomos Capital firm, which provided an initial funding round of $4.2 million in 2021 along with separate investments from Joe Lonsdale and Balaji Srinivasan. Funding also poured in from disgraced crypto scammer Sam Bankman-Fried’s Alameda Research trading firm.

Sam Altman of World (formerly Worldcoin) and OpenAI also invested in Praxis through his VC firm Apollo Adventures. Max Novendstern, cofounder of World (the company where biometric data, in the form of facial and iris scans is harvested in exchange for cryptocurrency and a World ID), is listed as a Praxis member and an investor. Additional connections can be found in the following diagram.

Last October, Praxis raised an additional $525 million to help facilitate the company’s goals to be “the world’s first Network State Movement.” The website boasts that “more than 14,000 Praxians live in 84 countries and have founded companies worth over $400B.” Brown is a diehard accelerationist, believing technology and capitalism must rapidly advance to the point where micronations emerge with CEO monarchs.

Source: Praxis

Like Próspera, Praxis is intent on reducing “regulatory barriers, enabling rapid breakthroughs in AI, crypto, biotech, energy, and advanced manufacturing.” Praxis’ goal is to undermine the nation state in favor of online crypto communities. This is clearly alluded to in “The Sovereign Network: Crypto’s End Game,” which mentions:

The monopoly on the formation of communities – up to and including nations – is gone. New regimes do not have to begin with political revolution. They can start with a tweet, and exist above, below, and within nation states.”

According to DMARGE, much of what Praxis is planning for its Network State sounds eerily similar to the “deep shifts” Klaus Schwab outlined in his 2016 book on The Fourth Industrial Revolution, citing that:

Praxis plans to run on code. Literally. Governance, infrastructure, and day-to-day services will rely on blockchain systems, which will enable automated resource allocation via smart contracts, real-time energy usage controlled by AI, and fully digital ID systems for residents.

 

The tech doesn’t stop there, though. Praxis also wants to embed 6G networks, renewable microgrids, AR-enhanced public spaces, and autonomous transportation into its foundation. Homes will be smart thanks to IoT devices and streets will be responsive.” (emphasis added).

Howard Scott would be especially proud of Praxis’ focus on real-time energy usage control and digital ID systems, as they were key tenets of his technocratic vision going back to the 1930s. Praxis cites several other lofty goals in its Declaration of Ascent, including the establishment of a “new form of human civilization: the Network Empire.” The Declaration asserts that Praxis will:

“…ascend into the cloud, dissolving the arbitrary boundaries of physical territory. Our connections, our relationships, our shared vision and values create a new form of nation – one that exists wherever its citizens gather, whether in physical space or across the digital expanse.”

Praxis promises to “restore Western civilization and pursue our ultimate destiny of life among the stars.” However, fulfillment of these promises will employ many of the same societal control systems as outlined in the globalist vision of technocracy. Will the technology be used to liberate humanity into a new golden age? Or will it be used to oppress and subjugate while installing a new class of “tech bro” CEOs wielding all the power?

Freedom Cities – Uniquely American Patchworks and Network States

While the founders of Próspera and Praxis focused on building their “anti-globalist” startup states abroad, there have been several attempts both now, and in the past, to establish them on American soil. What are known as innovation zones/districts, special economic zones (SEZs), charter cities, and research parks are all variations of Yarvin’s Patchworks and Srinivasan’s Network States.

As mentioned previously when discussing the origins of ZEDE law in Honduras, China pioneered the implementation of free trade zones operating in cities like Shanghai and Guangdong to bolster foreign investment and help companies prosper through lower tax rates, expedited customs clearance, and other benefits. America wants to emulate (and surpass) what China has accomplished, and plans to bring similar economic zones to U.S. states are ramping up. China is also the world’s smart city leaderwith over 500 in various phases of construction, according to government data released in 2020. Klaus Schwab once called China—the blueprint of modern technocracy—a “role model for many nations.” The U.S. is following China’s lead in attempting to create corporate-friendly, regulation-light, continuously surveilled and connected economic districts within its counties and cities.

Is this a play to spur innovation, create jobs, and restore America as an economic titan capable of infinite manufacturing and production, or a stealth move to help billionaires and corporations reboot the U.S. government by establishing sovereign, tech-run jurisdictions with CEOs acting as monarchs? Perhaps only time will tell.

In 2023, Donald Trump proposed building “Freedom Cities” in a video outlining his plans to repurpose some federal land to build up to 10 new cities. He promised these new cities would give Americans a “new shot at home ownership” and create a “quantum leap in the American standard of living.” Though he hasn’t spoken much about it since, he sold the idea to millions of his supporters, especially those with deep pockets in the tech industry.

Last March, Wired reported that several groups met with President Trump and are drafting legislation to create “Freedom Cities” in order to:

…have places where anti-aging clinical trials, nuclear reactor startups, and building construction can proceed without having to get prior approval from agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency.”

The value and effectiveness of regulations and regulatory agencies as currently constructed is debatable, but without accountability and oversight we may be faced with Operation Warp Speed on steroids coming from all sectors, not just Big Pharma and their fast-tracked, experimental mRNA gene therapies. Innovation should never trump safety and other human rights (pun intended). The current war on regulatory activities waged by Musk’s DOGE against agencies like the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau will only hurt ordinary, hardworking people while Big Tech, Wall Street, and other industries benefit from relaxed oversight.

Próspera is playing a key role in the initiative as its chief of staff, Trey Goff and other representatives have formed the Freedom Cities Coalition to advocate for the creation of as many startup cities as possible. The coalition is a project of NeWay Capital LLC, a social impact investment firm headed by Próspera founders Erik Brimen and Gabriel Delgado. “Freedom Cities,” an obvious oxymoron, are akin to the smart cities discussed throughout publications produced by the United Nations and World Economic Forum with at least 140 established throughout the world.

The Freedom Cities Coalition proposes three ways to establish popup Patchworks across the American landscape, including through presidential Executive Order, state led Interstate Compact agreements, or congressional legislation. They promise that “Freedom Cities” will create jobs, drive innovation, bolster American manufacturing, and combat China’s economic threat.

Currently operating mainly in Africa and Latin America, the Charter Cities Institute is another organization now working to bring “Freedom Cities” to America through a partnership with the Frontier Foundation, whose objective is to “accelerate innovation and administrative reform through Freedom Cities to secure America’s global lead in the 21st century.” Their Open Letter and Memo on Freedom Cities outline plans to engage the Trump administration in the creation of “newly established urban districts, envisioned as hubs of economic dynamism, technological innovation, and streamlined governance.”

The Memo details private-sector investments totaling over $1 trillion that have poured in within the last five years from previous legislation like the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, as well as new investments like the $500 billion Stargate Project. “Freedom Cities” are key to maximizing these investments since they can opt out of certain regulations, cut through red tape, allow for private land conversion, and/or utilize federally owned land “spanning an average of 50,000 acres.” In addition, the foundation believes that “Freedom Cities” will:

…deliver high-quality, affordable housing, re-shore critical industries, and empower cutting-edge technologies to flourish, all while serving as laboratories for bureaucratic and regulatory reform.”

Some reading this might be saying “This sounds great, sign me up.” But it must be pointed out that wealth rarely trickles down from these endeavors. Instead, it typically concentrates at the top. “Freedom Cities,” Network States—or whatever preferred euphemism they use—will likely produce no noticeable difference in spreading wealth to middle and lower classes. In fact, they might be the quickest way to arrive at the WEF’s vision of owning nothing and being happy. These sovereign environments will empower the “broligarchy” to run roughshod and potentially rob you of privacy, wealth, rights, and well-being.

Moreover, the digital revolution has played a role in the increasing concentration of wealth. As technology-driven companies achieve unprecedented scale and profitability, wealth accrues to those at the forefront of the tech sector – a select group of entrepreneurs, investors, and highly skilled professionals.”

 

– James, Jamal; Martey, Jonathan. “Technocracy & the New Dark Age of Digital Feudalism:” (p. 67). Indazonepublishing. Kindle Edition.

Another startup city project never making it past the proposal stage involved creating innovation zones in Storey County, Nevada to bring emerging technologies to the state, such as:

• blockchain
• autonomous technology
• Internet of Things (IoT)
• robotics
• artificial intelligence
• wireless technology
• biometrics
• renewable resources

The proposal was put forth in 2021 by Blockchains, LLC, a tech firm which purchased 67,000 acres of land in Storey County in 2018. The company desired to create a smart city with 35,000 residents. State lawmakers rejected the proposal, and former governor Steve Sisolak later pulled the bill that would have given tech companies cart-blanche to form self-governing jurisdictions that operated independent of county and state government. The tech-run governments would have been empowered to collect taxes, form school districts, and establish their own law enforcement, courts, and utilities. Jeffrey Berns, CEO of Blockchains, LLC envisioned a smart city where people “would not only purchase goods and services with “stablecoin,” but also have their entire online record—financial, medical and personal data—on blockchain.” It turns out the “smart” in smart city really means knowing everything about you.

Like Próspera and Praxis, the proposed “Freedom Cities” will largely operate outside the laws of the states and counties they reside in. If they begin to proliferate across America, they may create the parallel establishments that Srinivasan says are designed to eventually replace current institutions with corporate run versions. In these specialized zones, all power will reside with the billionaire owners who mostly share both the technocratic and transhuman vision of the future for all humanity.

Conclusion

Technocracy states that no political movement is competent to operate the technical equipment of today…The Constitution was written with the spade and a sickle. We are not out to destroy the Constitution. We wish it to be perfectly preserved, wrapped in cellophane and placed in the Smithsonian Institution where it belongs. It was all right when the nation consisted of log cabins and small farms but not today. We must get rid of it…Our monetary system is just as obsolete.”

– Howard Scott, Engineering Auditorium Address, 1935, The Words and Wisdom of Howard Scott, Vol. 1, Technocracy Inc., 1989

Technocrats have set their sights on ridding the U.S. of its Constitution, overthrowing the monetary system, and installing a scientific dictatorship for almost a century. They’ve gone through peaks and valleys of acceptance and influence, all while steadily adapting their strategies over time to achieve their vision. Politically averse, Howard Scott would laud some and denounce other efforts currently being employed to create his Technate by today’s globalists and anti-globalists. Sadly, the two variations encompassing both left and right political spectrums have created a dialectical approach blindly cheered on by an increasingly divided populace.

Elon Musk, Giorgia Meloni, Albert Bourla and Klaus Schwab at the globalist "Global Citizen" Atlantic Council awards. What is not to like? pic.twitter.com/Z3H0oBGIot

— Robin Monotti (@robinmonotti) September 25, 2024

While China typically backs its corporations and industries with direct state support, the U.S. has chosen to focus on private sector funding for national initiatives. With an intensified, ongoing tariff war between the two superpowers, the stage has been set to completely transition the world from nation-state governance into technocratic regional governance. According to Argentine President Javier Milei, nations will be divided into zones of influence under Russia, China, and the U.S. with Latin America shifting towards America. Milei’s statement came after U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer (and Trilateral Commission member), recently announced that “…globalization is over and we are now in a new era.”

While China’s technocratic influence is obvious with its social credit system, pervasive surveillance, censorship, and CCP dominance, Trump and the MAGA psyop provide the illusion that private industries are leading the charge to rid the government of corruption and inefficiency in order to make America great again and stave off the Chinese threat.

The Trump administration is abandoning much of the climate agenda and partially withdrawing from the UN and World Health Organization (WHO), which seem like wins for the MAGA camp. However, the “Nerd Reich” and their corrupt, captured army of government stooges are working in tandem to incorporate AI, blockchain, stablecoins/CBDC, EVs and autonomous vehicles, brain computer interfaces, Internet of Things (IoT), humanoid and police robots, 5G, 6G, biometrics, digital ID, satellites, CCTV, and drone surveillance, predictive policing, virtual and augmented reality, and advanced weaponry into a new totalitarian civilization.

Will these technologies increase freedom, or create a technofeudalist state?

Real ID, back door CBDCs through stablecoins, and now this. MAGA doesn’t even know they are actively cheering on what they were against (when it was Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates). https://t.co/onfgxbPf0m

— Aaron Day (@AaronRDay) April 18, 2025

Many economists believe the promise of America regaining prominence as a manufacturing and production powerhouse seems like a purposeful distraction at best. Howard Scott, current Technoking Elon Musk, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick all agree that automation will eliminate jobs.

Each year in the future there is going to be more machinery and less human work; but the machines must be kept busy. Their output in goods and services must be made available to the whole consuming public.”

 

– Howard Scott, Technology and Labor, 1936, The Words and Wisdom of Howard Scott, Vol. 1, Technocracy Inc., 1989

It’s hard to say exactly what that moment is, but there will come a point where no job is needed… You can have a job if you want to have a job — sort of personal satisfaction — but the AI will be able to do everything.”

 

– Elon Musk

Whether the goal is to stave off planetary doom from climate change, the AI apocalypse, nuclear war, illegal immigration, or reengineer the financial system, the solutions are always the same, technocracy for the common good. The good cop/bad cop routine where East and West powers each claim their way is better while the other side is demonized is designed for each to construct the same “scientifically and technologically controlled society” with billionaire broligarchs at the top of the pyramid.

Peter Thiel, Palantir, and the rest of the PayPal Mafia might become the rulers of a new America where its software becomes the central operating system of the government and military. If this sounds like the Deep State is being overthrown, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. To understand the danger of Palantir and how it is becoming the primary tool of technocratic governance, please watch the following video.

Unfortunately, most people are being masterfully manipulated into championing technocratic governance through one of the two “opposing” paradigms. However, as William Cooper wrote in the conspiracy classic Behold a Pale Horse:

You may call them whatever you wish… they are all the same and all work toward the same ultimate goal, a New World Order.

 

Many of them, however, disagree on exactly who will rule this New World Order, and that is what causes them to sometimes pull in opposite directions while nevertheless proceeding toward the same goal” (emphasis added).

Subscribe to Truth Unmuted