By its very nature, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a non-profit organization exclusively run by Technocrats. As such, it is an apolitical body that is happy to serve whatever form of governance exists as long as funding is received and salaries are paid. To a Technocrat, a world run by science and technology is better than any other form of governance.
That Technocrats have played a supporting role in world history is unquestioned. Scientists, engineers and technicians played a huge role in the Communist dictatorship in the former Soviet Union (For instance, see Science and the Soviet Social Order). Technocrats likewise played a central role in support of Adolph Hitler and National Socialism (See Scientists, Engineers and National Socialism). In both cases, the Technocrat goal was not necessarily Communism or Nazism, but rather the methodical exercise of science according to its Scientific Method. In other words, the process was more important than the outcome – and in both cases, the outcome was not questioned or resisted, but simply accepted.
The reason that ICANN formerly served the interests of the United States was simply that it answered to our government’s judicial, legislative and executive branches. In other words, the U.S. held the umbrella over ICANN and that was enough to keep it working for our national interests and not for someone else’s interests.
Obama changed that when he cut ICANN loose on September 30, 2016 by letting the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) contract expire without being renewed. After expiration, we forever lost the right to renew the contract again.
So, ICANN is now a “free-agent” looking for shelter in the same way that a boll weevil looks for a cotton plant: it needs a host organization in order to practice its craft, and, I dare say, it doesn’t care one whit who that host is.
It is no secret that the United Nations is making a play to become host to ICANN. In particular, the UN’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU), run by the Peoples Republic of China, is expected to play the central role in this effort. However, whether it is the ITU or some other UN agency is immaterial because it will still be the UN in the end.
But, why the UN? Because it is the fountainhead of the plans and operations to establish Technocracy as the sole global economic system while destroying capitalism and free enterprise. Technocracy is the issue here. Others know it as Sustainable Development or Green Economy, but the correct historical term is Technocracy.
In February 2015, the head of climate change at the UN, Christiana Figures, stated,
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” [emphasis added]
What is unclear about this? Sustainable Development, or Technocracy, is a resource-driven economic model regulated by energy rather than by supply and demand plus monetary currencies. In 1938, the original Technocrats defined Technocracy as “the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.”
To achieve its Utopia goals, the UN must have ICANN’s steering wheel and throttle. But while everyone is stressing over Internet censorship of web sites and the suppression of free speech, the real prize is completely overlooked: The Internet of Things (IoT).
In terms of “follow the money”, IoT is expected to generate upwards of $3 trillion by 2025 and is growing at a rate of at least 30 percent per year. In other words, it is a huge market and money is flying everywhere. If the UN can figure out a way to tax this market, and they will, it will provide a windfall of income and perhaps enough to make it self-perpetuating. Currently, the UN is financed by contributions from member states.
But, what is the IoT and who cares? IoT are the connections between inanimate objects and the humans that depend upon them. The digital Smart Meter on your home communicates energy usage via WiFi to the utility company; but it also communicates with the major appliances in your home and can even control them remotely without your consent or knowledge. The smart phone that you carry communicates with cell towers and localized signal receptors to create a map of your every movement. Smart home technology lets your stereo send sound to remote wireless speakers and to light bulbs equipped with sensors. The security camera that you installed to watch your home while you were on vacation can communicate with other cameras, microphones, the police department, etc. Examples go on and on.
ICANN issues the so-called IP addresses that are assigned to all these devices on a global basis. The original addressing scheme, IPV4, was based on four blocks of up to three digits each, punctuated with a period (e.g., 192.168.2.14). This scheme allows for a discrete address for up to 16.8 million devices. A few years ago, IPV4 ran out of numbers, forcing Internet service providers, corporations and other organizations to improvise internal numbering systems, known as ‘proxy servers’, to issue safe addresses to devices within their own domain. These systems are not only fragile, but they are bloated beyond reason and generally easy to hack.
To fix this, ICANN devised a new IP numbering system called IPV6, which adds two more blocks of numbers (e.g., 192.168.2.14.231.58). This scheme provides for 3.4×1038 addresses, or 340 trillion, 282 billion, 366 million, 920 thousand, 938 — followed by 24 zeroes. There is probably a way to say this number, but I cannot imagine what it would be. It’s somewhere beyond a trillion trillion unique numbers for every human being on earth!
Thus, IPV6 provides a way to assign a unique and directly addressable number to every electronic device on earth… for centuries to come.
As IPV6 rolls out to the world, the modified mission for ICANN will be to inventory and categorize the device attached to each IP address. For instance, all the air conditioners in the world would be directly addressable from a single list. Likewise for all computers, all automobiles, all cameras, all phones, all refrigerators, all articles of clothing, etc.
Whoever has control over and access to this data will literally be able to control the entire world, down to the last minutiae – and that is the United Nations’ exact mission: inventory, monitor and control.
But, this concept was set in history long before the technology existed. The original bible of Technocracy, the Technocracy Study Course (1934), laid out the hard requirements necessary for its implementation:
- “Register on a continuous 24 hour-per-day basis the total net conversion of energy.
- “By means of the registration of energy converted and consumed, make possible a balanced load.
- “Provide a continuous inventory of all production and consumption
- “Provide a specific registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and services, where produced and where used
- “Provide specific registration of the consumption of each individual, plus a record and description of the individual.” [Scott, Howard et al, Technocracy Study Course, p. 232]
As I thoroughly documented in my book, Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation, the United Nations is indeed the engine of modern Technocracy and as such, it is acting in a perfectly predictable manner. It seeks to establish a global Scientific Dictatorship where it controls all resources, all production and limits all consumption to its own liking. These Technocrats will dutifully apply their pseudo-scientific methodology to every problem in the world, and simply issue instructions to the net to ‘make it so.’
Yes, free speech will decrease and censorship will increase, but that pales in comparison to the real prize of the IoT that the United Nations desperately wants and needs in order to accomplish its own twisted goals.
Congress never understood this when they passively let Obama fail to renew our contract with ICANN. However, Obama and his globalist handlers understood it perfectly well, which makes the deception and treachery of it even worse. Thanks to this scurrilous bunch, the world has just been sold into digital slavery, from which there may be no return.
Patrick Wood is Editor-in-Chief of Technocracy.News and author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation. He is a frequent guest on radio programs around the world, and is the leading spokesman for resistance against the implementation of Technocracy.
This article may be reposted or printed provided that credit is clearly given to the author and a link back to the article is provided.
The White House has instructed the State Department to prepare an “options menu” detailing potential diplomatic steps that could be taken as part of an end-of-term Israeli-Palestinian peace push, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.
In an editorial — titled “Obama’s Israel Surprise?” — the WSJ said a UN Security Council resolution that condemns Israeli settlement construction or formally recognizes a Palestinian state would be “a boon to the bullies in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, while also subjecting Israeli citizens and supporters abroad to new and more aggressive forms of legal harassment…Does Mr. Obama want to be remembered as the President who criminalized Israeli citizenship?”
Moreover, asserted the editorial, a Security Council resolution setting parameters for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement would be an even graver “blunder.”
“President Obama may be the last man on earth to get the memo, but after decades of fruitless efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it might be wiser for the U.S. to step back until the Palestinians recognize that peace cannot be imposed from the outside,” it concluded. “If Mr. Obama is still seeking a Middle East legacy at this late stage in his presidency, his best move is do nothing to make it worse.”
In Politico on Monday, State Department veterans Aaron David Miller and Richard Sokolsky advised whomever the next president is not to “chase after Israeli-Palestinian peace without clear indications that the locals themselves and the Arabs, too, are prepared to act.”
“Washington should stay away from high-profile U.S.-initiated efforts to take on the big peace process issues,” they wrote. “The advice Bill Clinton gave to one of us before the July 2000 Camp David summit is inspirational but not always right: trying and failing isn’t better than not trying at all. Failure undermines U.S. prestige and power in war and peacemaking. It already has.”
“[T]he time for American-created transformational diplomacy in this region has long passed…If Americans want Hollywood endings, they should think about going to the movies,” Miller and Sokolsky concluded.
Over the weekend, the Washington Post said any Obama-led Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative launched during the lame-duck period between the presidential election on Nov. 8 and the inauguration of Obama’s successor on Jan. 20. would likely be viewed in the Middle East as “legacy-seeking grandstanding rather than as a contribution to peace.”
As reported extensively by The Algemeiner, concerns have been growing that Obama might not protect Israel at the UN as his time in office comes to an end. Last week, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer said Hillary Clinton supporters must call on the Democratic presidential nominee to ensure Obama refrains from making any diplomatic moves against the Jewish state.
Earlier this month, Malcolm Hoenlein — executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations — told The Algemeiner he had “some concerns about what Obama and others may do” regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process before Jan. 20.
“This is based on things I heard from him a year ago about his priorities and the understandable importance of his legacy to him,” Hoenlein said. “And I listen to his speeches and I have seen some of the harsh statements that are being issued…about Israeli settlement policies. The language being used is much stronger than we’ve seen in the past and I’m afraid that this could be indicative of what a forthcoming UN Security Council resolution against settlements, or something that goes even further, might look like.”
Any end-of-term Israeli-Palestinian peace push by the Obama administration would likely be viewed in the Middle East as “legacy-seeking grandstanding rather than as a contribution to peace,” the Washington Post said on Sunday.
In an editorial criticizing the “self-defeating passivity” of outgoing President Barack Obama’s Middle East policies, the paper cited the “absence of any preparatory diplomacy” as the reason that a new effort to advance the peace process would go nowhere.
Earlier this week, veteran Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer said Hillary Clinton supporters must call on the Democratic presidential nominee to ensure Obama refrains from making any diplomatic moves against Israel during the remainder of his time in office.
As reported on extensively by The Algemeiner, concerns have been growing that Obama might not protect Israel at the United Nations during the lame-duck period between the presidential election on Nov. 8 and the inauguration of Obama’s successor on Jan. 20.
In a video interview with the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, Jonathan Schanzer — vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) think tank in Washington, DC — said Obama was considering six different “punitive measures” aimed at “score settling” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama’s choices, Schanzer said, range from “recognizing a Palestinian state to a UN Security Council resolution that details parameters for the peace process, or perhaps…, even more likely, a UN Security Council resolution against settlements.”
“If those fail,” Schanzer continued, “then we think that there could be a Rose Garden speech or some other parameters speech that the president delivers in the last several months of his presidency. They’re also apparently weighing the option of sanctions, or at least barring organizations that support settlements through IRS regulations.”
In Sunday’s editorial — which took particular aim at Obama’s inaction in Syria — the Washington Post said that the next White House occupant “will be confronted by a pressing need to revitalize and reshape US engagement in the Middle East. Though many Americans share Mr. Obama’s evident desire to write off the region, it remains vital to US interests — as a source of energy, as well as of terrorism, destabilizing flows of refugees, potential nuclear proliferation and crimes against humanity.”
“In short,” the piece concluded, “what’s needed is a president who recognizes the need for American leadership in the Middle East.”