The world is undergoing a seismic shift towards technocracy and it seems that even President Trump is getting in on the action. While his recent proposal for an American-style public-private partnership may sound appealing, it’s important to examine whether it’s simply a new package for an old idea.
The Problem with Technocracy
Before delving into Trump’s proposal, it’s worth noting the problems associated with technocracy. As China has demonstrated, technocracy can easily be used as a tool for surveillance and control. China’s uninhabited cities are equipped with cameras, speakers, and facial recognition scanners, all of which are connected to the internet, creating an efficient spying apparatus.
The globalist push for the digitization of everything, including our money and identities, has led to concerns about the erosion of privacy and individual freedom. Sustainable development, presented as a solution for climate change and other global issues, is actually a ruse to enslave us to ever more invasive technology. With cities set to become the epicenter of the globalist control grid, it’s no wonder people are starting to wake up to the dangers of technocracy.
So, what does Trump’s proposal involve? Essentially, it’s a plan to make sure all the tools of our slavery are American-made, rather than imported from China. While this may seem like a patriotic twist on the globalist technocratic theme, it’s essentially a distraction from the real issue at hand.
Trump’s focus on flying cars and Americanizing the tools of our slavery is a clever way of distracting us from the bigger picture. His proposal sounds a lot like what China is doing, minus the flying cars. Trump seems to be trying to out-technocrat China and even Saudi Arabia, which is working on a similar project called “Neom”.
Trump’s proposal may seem appealing, but it’s important to examine its roots. Is he simply repackaging the globalist push for technocracy in a new package? It’s hard to say for sure, but it’s clear that Trump’s proposal is not as novel as it may seem. The danger of his proposal is that it may convince people that cities can once again be centers of creativity and inspiration for “freedom”.
In reality, Trump’s proposal is ever so deceptive. It’s unclear which globalist advisor whispered this delusional advice into Trump’s ear. Was it Jared Kushner, Lindsey Graham, or someone else? Perhaps it was even Klaus Schwab himself, the leader of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
In conclusion, Trump’s proposal for an American-style public-private partnership may seem like a good idea on the surface, but it’s important to examine its roots. Is it simply a Trojan horse for globalist technocracy? We must be vigilant in our analysis of such proposals to ensure that we do not unwittingly give up our privacy and individual freedom in the name of progress.