"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
A CARBON CURRENCY RATIONING FUTUREby Betty Luks
I awoke to a power failure this morning and this article is the result. Nothing focuses one’s attention on the reliability for energy and warmth from the modern electrical grid than a power blackout - and not able to boil the jug for an early morning cup of tea! I have been storing articles on ‘carbon currency’ and the ‘smart grid’ for a while realising it is important we understand where the push for ‘green energy’ ‘climate change’ ‘sustainability’ etc, is coming from. Local Councils were 'amalgamated' in order to set up the national grid. Why Local Councils were Amalgamated can be found here: I was reminded of Patrick Wood’s January 2010 article: “Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?” >https://www.augustreview.com/issues/technocracy/carbon_currency:_a_new_beginning_for_technocracy?_20100125155/< The term ‘technocracy’ was in vogue in the early 20th century. It was an American, Charles Ferguson, who first coined the term social credit and wrote a pamphlet “The Technarchy and the Capital College”, where, under the heading “Financial Politics” he explained he was part of a movement formed to “get possession of political power through the scientific control of capital.” American writer, Michael Lane, searched out Ferguson’s work and gave our readers a comprehensive summary of Ferguson’s intentions in “The Capital College” November 2002. At the time, Michael wrote:
“The capital college is the brainchild of Charles Ferguson, who coined the term social credit. It is presented in a pamphlet, The Technarchy and the Capital College (1924); in seven articles in the American News, an English-language newspaper published in Hamburg (1923-24); and in a paper called "Self-Sustaining Educational System" (1930).
Back to Patrick Wood’s “Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy”: “Critics who think that the U.S. dollar will be replaced by some new global currency are perhaps thinking too small. On the world horizon looms a new global currency that could replace all paper currencies and the economic system upon which they are based. The new currency, simply called Carbon Currency, is designed to support a revolutionary new economic system based on energy (production, and consumption), instead of price. Our current price-based economic system and its related currencies that have supported capitalism, socialism, fascism and communism, is being herded to the slaughterhouse in order to make way for a new carbon-based world Forces are already at work to position a new Carbon Currency as the ultimate solution to global calls for poverty reduction, population control, environmental control, global warming, energy allocation and blanket distribution of economic wealth. Unfortunately for individual people living in this new system, it will also require authoritarian and centralized control over all aspects of life, from cradle to grave… What is Carbon Currency and how does it 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.
“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. Sounds very modern in concept, doesn’t it? In fact, these ideas date back to the 1930’s when hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens were embracing a new political ideology called Technocracy and the promise it held for a better life. “Even now - classic literature was heavily influenced by Technocracy: George Orwell’s “1984”, H.G. Well’s “The Shape of Things to Come” and Huxley’s “scientific dictatorship” in “Brave New World”. This paper investigates the rebirth of Technocracy and its potential to recast the New World Order into something truly “new” and also totally unexpected by the vast majority of modern critics...” Background to the Technocrats: Mr. Wood has hit on to the fact that it is more than ‘manipulating the markets’. He continues: “Philosophically, Technocracy found it roots in the scientific autocracy of Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and in the positivism of Auguste Comte (1798- 1857), the father of the social sciences. Positivism elevated science and the scientific method above metaphysical revelation. Technocrats embraced positivism because they believed that social progress was possible only through science and technology. [Schunk, “Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective”, 5th, 315] “The social movement of Technocracy, with its energy-based accounting system, can be traced back to the 1930’s when an obscure group of engineers and scientists offered it as a solution to the Great Depression. The principal scientist behind Technocracy was M. King Hubbert, a young geoscientist who would later (in 1948-1956) invent the now-famous Peak Oil Theory, also known as the Hubbert Peak Theory. Hubbert stated that the discovery of new energy reserves and their production would be outstripped by usage, thereby eventually causing economic and social havoc. Many modern followers of Peak Oil Theory believe that the 2007-2009 global recession was exacerbated in part by record oil prices that reflected validity of the theory. “Hubbert received all of his higher education at the University of Chicago, graduating with a PhD in 1937, and later taught geophysics at Columbia University. He was highly acclaimed throughout his career, receiving many honours such as the Rockefeller Public Service Award in 1977. In 1933, Hubbert and Howard Scott formed an organization called Technocracy, Inc. Technocracy is derived from the Greek words “techne” meaning skill and “kratos”, meaning rule. Thus, it is government by skilled engineers, scientists and technicians as opposed to elected officials. It was opposed to all other forms of government, including communism, socialism and fascism, all of which function with a price-based economy. (We don’t agree with Mr. Wood here but will come to why not at a later stage…ed) As founders of the organization and political movement called Technocracy, Inc., Hubbert and Scott also co-authored Technocracy Study Course in 1934. This book serves as the “bible” of Technocracy and is the root document to which most all modern technocratic thinking can be traced. Technocracy postulated that only scientists and engineers were capable of running a complex, technology-based society. Because technology, they reasoned, changed the social nature of societies, previous methods of government and economy were made obsolete. They disdained politicians and bureaucrats, who they viewed as incompetent. By utilizing the scientific method and scientific management techniques, Technocrats hoped to squeeze the massive inefficiencies out of running a society, thereby providing more benefits for all members of society while consuming less resources. The other integral part of Technocracy was to implement an economic system based on energy allocation rather than price. They proposed to replace traditional money with Energy Credits. Their keen focus on the efficient use of energy is likely the first hint of a sustained ecological/environmental movement in the United States. Technocracy Study Course stated, for instance: Although it (the earth) is not an isolated system the changes in the configuration of matter on the earth, such as the erosion of soil, the making of mountains, the burning of coal and oil, and the mining of metals are all typical and characteristic examples of irreversible processes, involving in each case an increase of entropy. (Technocracy Study Course, Hubbert & Scott, p. 49) Modern emphasis on curtailing carbon fuel consumption that causes global warming and CO2 emissions is essentially a product of early Technocratic thinking. As scientists, Hubbert and Scott tried to explain (or justify) their arguments in terms of physics and the law of thermodynamics, which is the study of energy conversion between heat and mechanical work. Entropy is a concept within thermodynamics that represents the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work. Entropy thus increases as matter and energy in the system degrade toward the ultimate state of inert uniformity.
In layman’s terms, entropy means once you use it, you lose it for good. Furthermore, the end state of entropy is “inert uniformity” where nothing takes place. Thus, if man uses up all the available energy and/or destroys the ecology, it cannot be repeated or restored ever again.
“The significance of this, from the point of view of knowledge of what is going on in the social system, and of social control, can best be appreciated when one surveys the whole system in perspective. First, one single organization is manning and operating the whole social mechanism. The same organization not only produces but also distributes all goods and services. “With this information clearing continuously to a central headquarters we have a case exactly analogous to the control panel of a power plant, or the bridge of an ocean liner…” [Technocracy Study Course, Hubbert & Scott,p. 238-239] Two key differences between price-based money and Energy Certificates are that Transition At the start of WWII, Technocracy’s popularity dwindled as economic prosperity returned, however both the organization and its philosophy survived. Today, there are two principal websites representing Technocracy in North America: Technocracy, Inc., located in Ferndale, Washington, is represented at www.technocracy.org. A sister organization in Vancouver, British Columbia is Technocracy Vancouver, can be found at www.technocracyvan.ca. While Technocracy’s original focus was exclusively on the North American continent, it is now growing rapidly in Europe and other industrialized nations. For instance, the Network of European Technocrats was formed in 2005 as “an autonomous research and social movement that aims to explore and develop both the theory and design of technocracy”. The NET website claims to have members around the world. Of course, a few minor league organizations and their websites cannot hope to create or implement a global energy policy, but it’s not because the ideas aren’t still alive and well…
The Modern Proposal Because of the connection between the environmental movement, global warming and the Technocratic concept of Energy Certificates, one would expect that a Carbon Currency would be suggested from that particular community, and in fact, this is the case. In 1995, Judith Hanna wrote in New Scientist, “Toward a single carbon currency”, “My proposal is 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, the prestigious Harvard International Review published “A New Currency” and stated, “For those keen to slow global warming, the most effective actions are in the creation of strong national carbon currencies… For scholars and policymakers, the key task is to mine history for guides that are more useful. Global warming is considered an environmental issue, but its best solutions are not to be found in the canon of environmental law. Carbon’s ubiquity in the world economy demands that cost be a consideration in any regime to limit emissions. Indeed, emissions trading has been anointed king because it is the most responsive to cost. And since trading emissions for carbon is more akin to trading currency than eliminating a pollutant, policymakers should be looking at trade and finance with an eye to how carbon markets should be governed. We must anticipate the policy challenges that will arise as this bottom-up system emerges, including the governance of seams between each of the nascent trading systems, liability rules for bogus permits, and judicial cooperation. HIR concludes that “after seven years of spinning wheels and wrong analogies, the international regime to control carbon is headed, albeit tentatively, down a productive path.” In 2006, UK Environment Secretary David Miliband spoke to the Audit Commission Annual Lecture and flatly stated, "Imagine 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, New York Times published “When Carbon Is Currency” by Hannah Fairfield. She pointedly stated “To build a carbon market, its originators must create a currency of carbon credits that participants can trade.” PointCarbon, a leading global consultancy, is partnered with Bank of New York Mellon to assess rapidly growing carbon markets. In 2008 they published “Towards a Common Carbon Currency: Exploring the prospects for integrated global carbon markets.” This report discusses both environmental and economic efficiency in a similar context as originally seen with Hubbert in 1933. Finally, on November 9 2009, the Telegraph (UK) presented an article “Everyone in Britain could be given a personal ‘carbon allowance.’” “… implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity. Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using. If their "carbon account" hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits”. Mr. Wood continues: As you can see, these references are hardly minor league in terms of either authorship or content. The undercurrent of early Technocratic thought has finally reached the shore where the waves are lapping at the beach…” Read more: >https://www.augustreview.com/issues/technocracy/carbon_currency:_a_new_beginning_for_technocracy?_20100125155/< Carbon Currencies: Matt Taibbi in the Rolling Stone magazine 5th April 2010 wrote a comprehensive report about Goldman Sachs’ involvement in the new scheme – reminding his readers - “From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great depression – and they’re about to do it again…” [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64796] And now we come to Australia: Mark Latham in his “Diaries” referred to Al Gore (that ‘climate change’ promoter with vested interests) as a technocrat. Why would he use such a term? What did he know that we are not being told? Have you not asked yourself why the big push to spend billions of dollars on a broadband ‘rollout’? What of the crying need for the nation’s regions and cities renewal and repair of infrastructure before the need for a high-speed internet? Why such a push? Could it be the plans are to take the Carbon Currency scheme further? In November 2003 Steve Meloan wrote of “Toward a Global ‘Internet of Things’”
“Another potentially industry-defining technology recently emerged at the inaugural EPC (Electronic Product Code) Symposium, held September 15-17 in Chicago's McCormick Place. The gathering marked the official launch of the Electronic Product Code Network, an open technology infrastructure developed by a global consortium of companies and researchers. “The EPC network, using tiny RFID (Radio Frequency ID) tags, will enable computers to automatically recognize and identify everyday objects, and then track, trace, monitor, trigger events, and perform actions on those objects. The technology will effectively create an "Internet of things." RFID will fundamentally impact the industries of manufacturing, retail, transportation, health care, life sciences, pharmaceuticals, and government, offering an unprecedented real-time view of assets and inventories throughout the global supply chain. And in the process, whole new vistas (and challenges) will open up to software developers. Evolution or Revolution? “Most industry observers agree that the next wave of growth in the technology sector will be outside the realm of the traditional PC desktop. But many think of that growth in mundane terms -- with such things as cell phones and PDAs. In reality, we stand on the verge of an era that will see previously unimagined networked devices and objects. There are already some exciting applications that span the technology spectrum. NASCAR.com offers a Java applet-driven virtual dashboard that displays real-time wireless telemetry from cars during a race -- registering location, speed, RPM, braking, and more. The race cars have effectively become networked devices. “Meanwhile, NASA, with the assistance of GE Medical, is now able to monitor real-time medical data (such as blood pressure, respiration, and heart rate) from its Space Shuttle astronauts. Even trees are on the network. Fifty battery powered "micromote" sensors now dangle from UC Berkeley's Mather Redwood Grove, part of a pilot program to monitor the health of groves of redwoods. The sensors register light, moisture, and temperature, enabling scientists to continuously monitor the microclimates surrounding given trees. Such diverse networked "devices" offer concrete evidence of Metcalfe's Law. Robert Metcalfe, one of the developers of Ethernet, formulated that the usefulness of a network increases by the square of the number of nodes (users or devices) connected to the network. (Imagine how useful the telephone system would be if there were only two phones in the world!) "In the future, everything of value will be on the network in one form of another," says John Fowler, Software CTO of Sun Microsystems. "And once they're on the network, we can aggregate data from those diverse devices, and then deliver that data to equally diverse devices -- in informative and compelling ways." And that's exactly what we're seeing today. "Most people think of a PC or a PDA as things connected to the network," continues Fowler. "But here we are connecting trees, race cars, and astronauts to the network. It's going to become a much more seamless spectrum." (emphasis added…ed) Read more: http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/Ecommerce/rfid/ Background to ‘Technocracy’ I think that what the American folk are missing in the background to Technarchy is who actually controlled American politics at the time, and what major economic and industrial changes had taken place that should have been taken into account – but weren’t. As to who actually controlled America… read on. Tennessee Valley Authority In 1951 Dr. Geoffrey Dobbs wrote a very important little book titled: “On Planning the Earth” (1951) and the ‘blurb’ promoting the book explains: “Behind the Welsh and Scottish Hydro-Electric Schemes, the Snowy River Scheme in Australia, the Canadian River Schemes, the Jordan Valley Scheme, the huge Russian Plans for diverting rivers, and many other Land Planning Schemes which have suddenly appeared all over the world since the War, (WWII) lies one example and prototype – the Tennessee Valley Authority: and behind that lies a policy which has ensured that the region chosen for the first unified Land Planning Authority should also provide the site for the first Atom Bomb Plant. The T.V.A. has not lacked publicity, but it has lacked informed criticism at least outside the United States. This book supplies it, but also a good deal more than mere criticism, for it digs deep into the mental, moral and political background of such large-scale Planning, and indicates the suppressed alternative. The author was formerly lecturer in Botany at King’s College, London, and is now (1951) Senior Lecturer in Forest Botany at the University College of North Wales, Bangor. In Chapter VI, which deals with the North Wales Power Scheme, he writes, therefore, with the insight of a local resident. Socialist Party of America’s Plan – A Public Superpower System: “The idea still persists in some quarters that the Tennessee Valley Authority, owing its existence as it did to President Roosevelt and his High Financial and Economic advisers, represents a successful compromise between central Planning and private enterprise,” wrote Geoffrey Dobbs. “It is nothing of the sort; it is quite definitely and openly Stage I of the national Socialist Party of America's Plan for the socialisation of industry, beginning with a Public Superpower System, as published by Carl D. Thompson in 1923, and elaborated by H. S. Raushenbush, who published the terms 'Authority' and 'yardstick', in the sense now adopted in all T.V.A. literature, as early as 1927. Attempts to introduce this power authority directly having
been blocked by Congress, advantage was taken of navigation
and flood control as constitutional pegs on which to hang
the power plan. The Socialist self-congratulation when this
plan succeeded was quite open, and a comparison of the
1923 Plan for getting control of industry with the seven-T.V.A. plan for 1937 published in Public Ownership for that
year places the matter beyond doubt.
It has been thought
wise to split up the seven-T.V.A. Bill into separate M.V.A.,
C.V.A., A.V.A. Bills, etc., but that is merely a matter of
expediency.
Outside of America the people
who approve of the T.V.A. are exactly those whom one
would expect: for instance, on August 1, 1945 Professor
Harold Laski (then Chairman of the Labour Party) announced in a broadcast to America that the programme of
the then newly-elected Socialist Government of Great Britain
"would follow the broad outline of the Tennessee Valley Authority Scheme."
International Power Monopoly Control: From the point of view of the industrial districts which arc to receive the current, quite apart from the waste involved in transportation, it means that their homes and industries can be controlled from a source outside the influence of local feeling and action. This method, control by an international power monopoly through a transmission grid supplied from outside the zones in question, was in fact suggested for the control of the German people shortly after he War, by Harold G. Moulton (President of the Brookings Institution) and Louis Marlio, in their book “The Control of Germany and Japan”, and was shown to have many advantages over the more blatant military and police methods. The ultimate, and not at all remote, conclusion of the matter, if the intentions of 'the Planners are carried out, is quite openly stated by Julian Huxley (later the first Secretary-General of U.N.ES.CO.) in “The Architectural Review”, as long ago as June, 1943, and quoted, with evident approval, by [David E.] Lilienthal, (T.V.A. Chairman of the Authority) in his book: “T.V.A.-Democracy on the March” (Penguin Edition 1944; p. 174): " . . . Studies,' writes Huxley, "are being made of how a set-up of general T.V.A. type could be adapted to serve as an international instead of a national agency (thus among other things undercutting and transcending nationalist sovereignties, as the T.V.A. undercuts and transcends State rights and boundaries)..." That seems sufficiently clear!" The Real Rulers of both the USA and Russia In 1939 the headlines of The Social Crediter journal proclaimed, “WARNING EUROPE’ [Vol.2. No.7]:
The article continued: “President Roosevelt's own position was succinctly described by Walter Lippman in the New York Herald Tribune on June 27, 1932. He said: "It is evident that Roosevelt is not the leader of the forces behind him. He is being used." Mr. Walter Lippman is in a position to know. He, it should be remembered, is commonly credited with being the author of President Wilson's "Fourteen Points." In the Encyclopaedia Britannica matter is quoted to the effect that this document, laying down the general conditions of peace, was drafted by Dr. S. Mezes, D. H. Miller and Walter Lippmann…” One of President Wilson’s fourteen points was the setting up of a “League of Nations” – the forerunner to the United Nations! The second important point lurking in the historical background was the implications of the Industrial Revolution something most people had not grasped…….. Smart Grid: The Implementation of Technocracy? By Patrick Wood, Editor, March 2, 2010 https://www.augustreview.com/issues/technocracy/smart_grid:_the_implementation_of_technocracy?_20100222156/ Introduction "A green economy implies the decoupling of resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth... These investments, both public and private, provide the mechanism for the reconfiguration of businesses, infrastructure and institutions, and for the adoption of sustainable consumption and production processes." [p. 2] Sustainable consumption? Reconfiguring businesses, infrastructure and institutions? What do these words mean? They do not mean merely reshuffling the existing order, but rather replacing it with a completely new economic system, one that has never before been seen or used in the history of the world. This paper will demonstrate that the current crisis of capitalism is being used to implement a radical new economic system that will completely supplant it. This is not some new idea created in the bowels of the United Nations:
It is a revitalized implementation of Technocracy that was thoroughly repudiated by the American public in 1933, in the middle of the Great Depression.
Background
In 1932, Harry A. Porter wrote in “Roosevelt and Technocracy”, "Just as the Reformation established Religious Freedom, just as the Declaration of Independence brought about our Political Freedom, Technocracy promises Economic Freedom." [Foreward, iii] Porter's plan included abandoning the gold standard, suspending the stock exchanges and nationalizing railroads and public utilities. Freedom notwithstanding, Porter then called for President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt to be sworn in as Dictator rather than President so that he could overturn the existing economic system in favour of Technocracy: "Drastic as these changes from the present order of things may be, they will serve their purpose if only to pave the way for the Economic Revolution - and Technocracy." (p. 63) If Technocracy had truly been extinguished before the onset of WWII, we would not be concerned about it today. However, when Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote “Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era” in 1968, it was essentially a Neo-Technocratic treatise calling for a fourth and final stage of world history, or the Technetronic Era. Today, it is necessary to rethink these issues in order to determine a) if this radical movement is still operating, b) what are their goals and c) how do they plan to achieve their goals.
In Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy, the subject of historic Technocracy was introduced in the context of creating a new economic system based on energy accounting rather than price accounting.
The pressing and unanswered question is how would such a Technocratic system actually be implemented? Requirements
In 1932, such technology did not exist. Time was on the Technocrat's side, however, because this technology does exist today, and it is being rapidly implemented to do exactly what Scott and Hubbert specified: Namely, to exhaustively monitor, measure and control every kilowatt of energy delivered to consumers and businesses on a system-wide basis. It's called: Smart Grid. What is Smart Grid?
According to a U.S. Department of Energy publication,
This is a relatively new initiative, but it is racing forward at breakneck speed. The Office of Electricity Delivery was created in 2003 under President George W. Bush, and elevated in stature in 2007 by creating the position of Assistant Secretary of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability to head it. It is not clearly stated who "charged" the Department of Energy to this task, but since the Secretary of Energy answers directly to the President, it is assumed that it was a directive from the President. There certainly was no Congressional directive or mandate. Implementation
This is the "kick-start" of Smart Grid in the U.S. On January 8, 2010, President Obama unveiled an additional $2.3 billion Federal funding program for the "energy manufacturing sector" as part of the $787 billion American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. Funding had already been awarded to 183 projects in 43 states, pending Obama's announcement. One such project in the northwest is headed by Battelle Memorial Institute, covering five states and targeting 60,000 customers. The project was actually developed by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), a federal agency underneath the Department of Energy. Since it is pointedly illegal for a federal agency to apply for federal funds, BPA passed the project off to Battelle, a non-profit and non-governmental organization (NGO), which was promptly awarded $178 million. It is interesting to note that BPA takes credit for originating the Smart Grid concept in the early 1990's, which it termed "Energy Web." You can see from BPA's graphic depiction that it is comprehensive in scope from production to consumption. According to Battelle's August 27, 2009 press release, "The project will involve more than 60,000 metered customers in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming. Using smart grid technologies, the project will engage system assets exceeding 112 megawatts, the equivalent of power to serve 86,000 households. 'The proposed demonstration will study smart grid benefits at unprecedented geographic breadth across five states, spanning the electrical system from generation to end-use, and containing many key functions of the future smart grid,' said Mike Davis, a Battelle vice president. 'The intended impact of this project will span well beyond traditional utility service territory boundaries, helping to enable a future grid that meets pressing local, regional and national needs.'” Battelle and BPA intend to work closely together and there is an obvious blurring as to who is really in control of the project's management during the test period. In a "For Internal Use Only" document written in August 2009, BPA offers talking points to its partners. It states that "Smart Grid technology includes everything from interactive appliances in homes to smart meters, substation automation and sensors on transmission lines." [Emphasis added] A Network of Things
For instance, In 2008 the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) developed this small circuit board called a "Grid Friendly Appliance Controller." According to a Department of Energy brochure, "The GFA Controller developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is a small circuit board built into household appliances that reduces stress on the power grid by continually monitoring fluctuations in available power. During times of high demand, appliances equipped with the controller automatically shut down for a short period of time, resulting in a cumulative reduction that can maintain stability on the grid." According to PNNL's website,
You can see how automatic actions are intended to be triggered by direct interaction between objects, without human intervention. The rules will be written by programmers under the direction of technocrats who understand the system, and then downloaded to the controllers as necessary. Thus, changes to the rules can be made on the fly, at any time and without the homeowner's knowledge. PNNL is not a private enterprise, however. It is "owned" by the U.S. Department of Energy and operated by Battelle Memorial Institute! All of this technology will be enabled with Wi-Fi circuitry that is identical to the Wi-Fi-enabled network modems and routers commonly used in homes and businesses throughout the world. Wi-Fi is a trademark of the Wi-Fi Alliance that refers to wireless network systems used in devices from personal computers to mobile phones, connecting them together and/or to the Internet. According to the Wi-Fi Alliance, "the need for Smart Grid solutions is being driven by the emergence of distributed power generation and management/monitoring of consumption." In their white paper, Wi-Fi for the Smart Grid, they list the specific requirements for interoperability posted by the Department of Energy: Thus, the bi-directional and real time Smart Grid communications network will depend on Wi-Fi from end to end. This is easily understood from the two figures included in the Wi-Fi Alliance white paper: While the consumer is pacified with the promise of lower utility costs, it is the utility company who will enforce the policies set at the regional, national and global regulators. Consumer Blowback? Wall Street Journal reported "What Utilities Have Learned From Smart-Meter Tests..." on February 22, 2010, and revealed several important early aspects of smart grid implementation. Nevertheless, the big carrot for utility companies to go along with the government's Smart Grid is to balance electrical demand, cut back on new power generation facilities and enhance their profit picture. Before the dust settles on Smart Grid, both consumers and utilities may learn some sharp lessons about government intervention: When the government shows up on your doorstep and offers to help you save money, everyone knows that is an oxymoron. Government does not function to help people or companies to save money or to be more efficient; rather, it functions to maintain and increase its own power and control over its citizens. Going Global The UNEP report mentioned above reveals that "15 percent of the fiscal stimulus funds committed for 2009-2010, which exceed $3.1 trillion, can be regarded as green in nature... most green components are oriented towards energy efficiency and renewable energies in a variety of sectors." A BusinessWeek article, "How Italy Beat the World to a Smarter Grid" stated on November 16, 2009 that "After several false starts, 2010 finally could be the year when smart meters go global."
Other countries with Smart Grid pilot projects already launched include Germany, France, England, Russia, Japan, India, Australia, South Africa and a host of others. Regional organizations such as SMARTGRIDS Africa have been set up to promote Smart Grid in smaller countries. Thus, the global rush is on. In every case, Smart Grid is being accelerated by government stimulus spending. The global vendors are merely lining up their money buckets to be filled up with taxpayer funds. As is the case in the U.S., there was little, if any, pre-existing or latent demand for Smart Grid technology. Demand has been artificially created by the respective governments of each country. Conclusion
• The Smart Grid initiative was developed and funded by government agencies and NGO's. Following the same pattern as the U.S., many other industrialized nations are implementing Smart Grid at the same time, using their own stimulus money. This synchronized implementation is certainly by design, and as such, it implies that there must be a designer. Who might be providing such top-down coordination on a global basis must be saved for another paper. One thing is certain: The technology being purchased world-wide all originated in the United States and is being marketed by the same global corporations as mentioned above. Lastly, there is an assumption throughout Smart Grid literature that the Federal Administration will have full visibility of all data within the Smart Grid, even down to the individual household.
International standards created for Smart Grid will also enable the U.S. Smart Grid to be connected seamlessly with Canada and Mexico, thus providing a comprehensive North American energy management and distribution system. Is Smart Grid destined to be a global phenomenon? Yes. Is it designed to support a new global Technocratic, resource-based economic system? Yes. Technocracy must be seen for what it is: An attempt to impose a totalitarian, scientific dictatorship. In 1933, it called for the inauguration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as dictator in order to "pave the way for economic revolution." Fortunately at the time, they failed in their attempted coup. If today's Smart Grid is successfully completed, it will enable the conversion of our existing economic system into something far different and far worse. This is why the American people repudiated Technocracy in 1933, and this is exactly why we (and citizens around the world) should thoroughly repudiate it today.
(emphasis added...ed) Resources
Note: In preparing for this report, the editor would like to give special thanks to Dr. Martin Erdmann, Carl Teichrib and Dr. Michael Coffman, for their encouragement, testing of ideas and additional supporting research. The Australian, 4/1/2010 COMMENTS ON THIS STORY
Alex Posted at 3:16 PM January 04, 2010
Passepartout of Brisbane Posted at 3:26 PM January 04, 2010
EXTRACT: “THE ENEMY WITHIN: A SHORT HISTORY OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND” SOVIETISM BY STEALTH https://alor.org/Library/EnemyWithintheEmpire.htm#1a "...Apart from attempting to obtain control of industry, there was a move to obtain control of agriculture by the establishment of Boards. I shall deal with this matter at some length, because the future of civilisation may well depend upon the attitude that the primary producers adopt towards this plot to "Sovietise" them. Every representative of International Finance who has ever been in this country - such as Mr. Bruce - has urged "planning" of primary production. It is essential that we understand the origin and motives of this sinister plan. Evidence given before the Macmillan Commission revealed that the Bank of England had set up an Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. Sir Otto Niemeyer took a leading part in this and became a director. The chairman was Sir W. H. N. Gosehen, chairman of the National Provincial Bank. In 1931, there came into existence in England a movement for promoting "Planned Economy." Sir Basil P. Blackett, director of the Bank of England, was the first chairman. He was succeeded by Mr. Israel Moses Sieff, the present holder of that position. An examination of the list of people actively engaged in P.E.P. (Political and Economic Planning) reveals a curious mixture of conservatives, financiers and socialists. Mr. Sieff is director of a chain-store enterprise in England called "Marks and Spencer." His idea is to run the whole nation as one big trust. By 1934 the "P.E.P." was in action in the following organisations: Milk Marketing Board, Pig Marketing Board, Electricity Grid, British Broadcasting Corporation, Import Duties Advisory Board, Town and Country Planning Board, United Steel Companies Ltd. The following extract appeared in an English journal in 1940: "The Political and Economic Planning group, under the chairmanship of Mr. Sieff, is out to reduce every public and private activity in England to a compact mechanism of State-aided monopolies, combines and chain-stores, under the control of a few financiers. . . . This wonderful and genial movement for the enslavement of Great Britain is making a fair headway, and has succeeded in laying hands on pigs, bacon, milk, potatoes, turnips, buses. . . . The latest to join the movement is the National Birth Control Association, which has, accordingly, altered its name to Family Planning Association. It will tell when and whom to marry, how many children to bring into the world, when to divorce, when and how to die, all according to the lofty standards of a group of financiers' needs and benefits." Speaking about this Political and Economic Planning group and its aims, Mr. McFadden is reported, in the Congressional Record of June 8, 1934, as saying: "This plan is already in operation in the British Government by means of the Tariff Advisory Board, which in many of its powers is somewhat comparable to the National Recovery Administration in the United States. This group organisation has gathered all data and statistics obtained by governmental and private organisation in administrative, industrial, social, educational, agricultural and other circles; and Army, Navy and airport statistics are in their hands. This has been made possible from the fact that the Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, being a Fabian, the 'Political Economic Plan' Fabian group has had all archives at its disposal. Through the Tariff Advisory Board created in February, 1933, and headed by Sir George May, the control over industry and trade is being firmly established. This board works in direct connection with the Treasury and with it devises tariff policy. It has also been granted the powers of a law court and can exact under oath that all information concerning industry and trade be given it. "Iron and steel, as also cotton industrials in England, have been ordered by the Tariff Advisory Board to prepare and submit plans for the reorganisation of their industries and warned that, should they fail to do so, a plan for complete reconstruction would be imposed upon them. The Tariff Advisory Board has been granted default powers and can, therefore, impose its plan. . . . An interesting bit of information has come to me in this connection to the effect that this Fabian group has close connections with the Foreign Policy Association in New York City. This Foreign Policy Association was largely sponsored by the late Paul M. Warburg, and has received the close attention and support of Bernard M. Baruch and Felix M. Frankfurter. "Many serious people in England feel that this Fabian organisation practically controls the British Government and that this Government will soon be known as 'His Majesty's Soviet Government.' It is asserted that both Prime Minister MacDonald and his son belong to the organisation and that the movement is well financed and well organised, and intends to practically Sovietise the English-speaking race. About three months after the passage of the National Recovery Act of the United States, when Israel Moses Sieff was urged by members of his committee to show more activity, he said: "Let us go slowly for a while and wait and see how our plan carries out in" America. FINANCE AND SOCIALISM Sovietism, under the title of the New Deal, is being rapidly foisted on the American public. The fundamental idea is the same as "planning" and Communism: everything run by big State trusts controlled by Finance. Production is made to fit the money system which alone creates a set of circumstances conducive to getting the people to accept these ideas. The financiers know that primary producers have an independent outlook and have always found them hardest to deal with. This was particularly so in Russia. There should be no need for me to comment on the similar manner in which the primary producers are being treated in this country. Writing of P.E.P. in 1935, Captain Bernard Acworth, R.N., said: "In the winter of 1933-34, Mr. Harold MacMillan, M.P., published a book, 'Industrial Reconstruction,' in which, with the aim of establishing an equilibrium between supply and demand, and so of eliminating price-cutting, proposals were made for amalgamating all firms in the several industries into one corporation which would control the industry. The author frankly admitted that the proposed corporations would constitute monopolies and that this would tend to make prices rise to the consumer." In November, 1934, Lord Melchett (of the great Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) and a member of P.E.P.) introduced an Industrial Reorganisation (Enabling) Bill into the House of Lords. Its purpose was to promote the formation of corporations of the type proposed by Mr. MacMillan. It only secured a first reading, but an Industrial Reorganisation League, with Mr. MacMillan as chairman, came into existence to secure support in industry for its principles. . . . It should also be noted that Mr. Walter Elliot, Minister for Agriculture, is reported to have said on March 20, 1935, that 'the United Kingdom policy' for agriculture was 'the application of the principle of planning in all its phases.' ----------------------------- BUT WAIT… FREE ENERGY ? FREE !!! ENERGY !!!
“Prototype Nokia phone recharges without wires,” by Christopher Null: Nokia, however, has taken another baby step in that direction with the invention of a cell phone that recharges itself using a unique system: It harvests ambient radio waves from the air, and turns that energy into usable power. Enough, at least, to keep a cell phone from running out of juice. While "traditional" (if there is such a thing) wireless power systems are specifically designed with a transmitter and receiver in mind, Nokia's system isn't finicky about where it gets its wireless waves. TV, radio, other mobile phone systems -- all of this stuff just bounces around the air and most of it is wasted, absorbed into the environment or scattered into the ether. Mind you, harvesting ambient electromagnetic energy is never going to offer enough electricity to power your whole house or office, but it just might be enough to keep a cell phone alive and kicking. Currently Nokia is able to harvest all of 5 milliwatts from the air; the goal is to increase that to 20 milliwatts in the short term and 50 milliwatts down the line. Meanwhile, Wallace Klinck of Canada has responded to the above article: “Yes, the ‘powers that be’ want us to now believe that energy is ‘scarce’, thus creating an artificial scarcity complex. As we all know, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Interesting! Just goes to further demonstrate that we do not know the future and cannot possibly predict what it may hold. The universe consists of energy and matter. Our challenge as humans is merely to discover means of converting one to the other in forms useful to us. If we imagine that the energy and matter of the universe is not infinitely greater than man's relatively infinitesimal needs, then surely something is wrong with our thinking. We do, of course, need to be sufficiently innovative to accomplish this task. But so far the success rate has been continuous and growing at a stupendous exponential rate despite all the enormous sabotage characteristic of the system under orthodox financial policy. “Today, I was listening to the "Money Talks" radio call-in program from Vancouver (Canada) and what a marvelous opportunity it provided to expose the whole financial scam. Even the guests were pointing out that few people realized that money is created out of nothing. Social Credit exists incarnate in the here and now and we have to realize and maximize it not sometime or somewhere, but here and now, each day, as we live. If the various political parties are not interested in Social Credit policies then it is up to an informed, outraged and militant society to put the fear of God (and loss of office with it perks, "status" and privileges) into these people. It is this fear ultimately to which the politicians will respond and they will only do so when they realize that the biggest threat to their sinecure comes from an informed and sustained multi-level consumer-citizen revolt. At that point they may even fall all over each other in advocating the appropriate reforms. Political parties tend to divide the electorate and thereby dissipate constructive energy which might otherwise be effectively mobilized toward the realisation of a genuine Social Credit dispensation.” Further reading: “Prodigal Genius” : The Life of Nickola Tesla” by John O’Neill. He was a workaholic and his work generally took first place over love, family, money and people. Because of this he was exploited by many, a number of his inventions were claimed to have been the work of others, i.e. Edison. He was financed on different occasions by J.P. Morgan, Westinghouse and in fact anyone who he could convince with his experiments. All the money he did make, and this was quite substantial, went into more equipment and more building to carry out more experiments. He was aware that some of his inventions could be used for the wrong purposes but had no intention that they should be. He was a man before his time … the book does not bog you down with technical details (there are other books which do that), it is a really good read for people with very little electrical knowledge. AND NOW WHAT ABOUT WATER ELECTRIC ENERGY? The following report came from the ISIS Report 25/06/09. OR THIS ? ELECTRIC CARS…. “Another spectacular potential addition to the real credit of society?” asks Wallace Klinck of Canada. The message on the website reads: Paradigm smasher: This guy is going to ruin everything for the global warming/carbon tax crowd. Non-polluting cars that are high performance and fun? Tell me it ain't so Big Al (Gore). How are we supposed to wallow in "inconvenient truths" if trouble-makers like this mess things up by smoking the car companies with superior home brew engineering? Remember, the personal computer was the creation of a bunch of unfunded individuals, not the military-industrial complex. It's pretty clear that the oil companies that control Detroit don't want us to have them. Even if it means bankrupting the car manufacturers and giving the market to the Chinese. But there's a silver lining... We're not far from being able to make our own. Then what? Criminalize battery possession? ----------------------------
|