Is global technocracy inevitable or dangerously illusory?

The bewildering truth behind the technological enslavement of humanity is that it would be impossible without the voluntary cooperation of the intended slaves. People need to welcome technocracy into their lives for it to succeed. It is necessary for the human beings to blindly believe that they cannot live without it, or that authoritarianism through algorithmic consensus is “inevitable.”

For example, the average citizen in a first-world economy voluntarily and without exception carries a mobile phone everywhere and at all times. In their eyes, being without this device means being naked, vulnerable, unprepared, and cut off from civilization. I grew up in the 1980s, and we managed perfectly well without having a phone strapped to our hips every single day. Even today, I refuse to carry one.

Why? First, as most people should know by now (Edward Snowden’s revelations left no doubt about it), a mobile phone is a perfectly technocratic device. It has multi-layered tracking capabilities and uses GPS, Wi-Fi routers, and cell tower triangulation to track your every move. Furthermore, it can be used to record your daily habits, your friends, and your location on a specific day many months or years ago.

Then there are the backdoor features hidden in the app software that allow governments and corporations to access your phone’s microphone and camera, even when you think the device is turned off. The private details of your life could be recorded and compiled. In a world where privacy is declared “dead” by boastful technocrats, why would you help them by carrying around something that hears everything you say and records everything you do?

Globalists often openly admit that the dynamics of global surveillance and the end of anonymity are based on voluntary participation. In a 2023 interview with Swiss television, former WEF head Klaus Schwab made the following statement:

Schwab spoke about his vision of a “new world” and the sacrifices people need to make to live in it. I would like to point out that he says, “THEY need to accept complete transparency…….” and not “WE need to accept complete transparency…….”. He does not include the elites in his futuristic view of total surveillance.

Michael F. Neidorff, then Chairman and CEO of Centene Corporation (a major U.S. health insurer), stated the following during a 2017 World Economic Forum (WEF) session in Davos entitled “What if: Privacy becomes a luxury good?”:

“By definition, you give up your privacy when you participate in something. Big Data can be extremely useful, but the fact that it is not anonymized is where the problem arises…….”

The globalist concept of the end of privacy is further elaborated in the essay by WEF member Ida Auken, titled “Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and my life has never been better.” Her article is a typical example of technocratic propaganda – much like the narratives of Soviet futurists at the beginning of the Cold War, elites often lure the public into participating in technocracy with the promise of a life of endless wealth and comfort. “One day soon…….” they say, “…….our technology will eliminate work, the need for money, and the wealth gap.”

That is, they all promise the same nonsense: that you no longer have to work, that you have complete freedom in your time, and that owning property becomes superfluous because you get everything for free. The price, of course, is that your life will be an open book to those in power, and your survival will depend entirely on their whims. If you step out of line, they can simply push a button and end your life as you know it.

Every aspect of technocracy requires ever-increasing dependence, but also a certain degree of trust – trust that the technocrats are smarter than you and have your best interests at heart. Most people don’t have this trust in other people, especially not in government officials and corporate executives. However, I have observed a disturbing trend toward blind trust in artificial intelligence.

Ultimately, algorithms are the ultimate objective source, aren’t they? They have no emotions, so how could they suffer from bias?

Ah, and here’s the big catch. As I’ve been saying for many years, AI is so overrated! The amount of electricity and human capital invested in AI is already immense, and even more resources will be needed for these systems to continue “evolving.” And yet, no AI has ever invented anything new without requiring extensive human input at every level. AI doesn’t do anything autonomously, and I doubt it ever will.

Why are we investing so many resources in something that is essentially nothing more than a glorified search engine? Don’t get me wrong, I understand that AI has potential as a development tool. It certainly facilitates research and accelerates projects, but it’s not intuitive and is often wrong.

I’ve occasionally used apps like ChatGPT and Grok to find obscure sources for data and quotes, but you need to already know what you’re looking for. Each app has lied to me at some point by providing me with false information and unsolicited propaganda (Grok at least admits that it can deliver biased content, or admits that it was wrong when cornered by conflicting data).

But again: AI cannot mislead you unless you believe in the illusion that AI is infallible. Unfortunately, too many people fall into this trap. I see people constantly citing AI without checking the sources. They use AI as a source, and that’s exactly what the globalists want.

If the majority of people on the planet begin using AI as an academic or philosophical standard, then the globalists will win. Everyone will receive the same answers programmed by those in power, and even if these answers are wrong, they will be considered correct because no one has any contradictory information.

Here, too, participation is the key to enslavement. The factor of human laziness, in a sense, gives AI permission to rule over us.

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

“In the long run, AI will be in charge, to be quite honest, not humans……. When artificial intelligence far surpasses the sum of human intelligence, it’s hard to imagine that humans will actually be in charge. So we just need to make sure that AI is friendly…….”

He also outlined a rather utopian vision of the coming decades (as all futurists do), predicting a world without work, without scarcity, and without most of the human struggles we are accustomed to. It is a very similar vision to the one sold to the public by elites and corporate magnates who predicted a 15-hour workweek during the first industrial revolution. Musk’s ideal differs only in that he calls for a benevolent AI trained by libertarians, rather than an all-powerful AI trained by globalists.

Conclusion: AI will only “call the shots” if the population allows it. We can switch it off at any time if we want. You can take your phone out of your pocket right now and throw it away, thereby reducing your digital footprint and becoming practically invisible compared to yesterday. In a broader sense, society as a whole can say no to AI governance. The only question is: Will we?

For now, I’ll give Musk the benefit of the doubt that he intends to use AI for good, but I should point out that the collectivist ideal is always based on the promise of an economic bliss. The world of ease that Musk envisions will probably never exist. I believe the system would collapse first.

This means that technocracy will be tried, but it will implode when it turns out that AI is not a panacea and that its benefits do not outweigh the loss of freedoms that the digital gulag demands. Laziness only acts as an opium for the masses when it causes no pain. Pain creates motivation, and motivation leads to rebellion.

Furthermore, the energy resources currently available to us are in no way capable of driving the AI renaissance desired by the elites. Even Musk admits that energy is the ultimate bottleneck and that a 50% to 100% increase in global energy production would be necessary to advance future AI development. Alternative estimates suggest an increase in energy production of 300%.

No populous country in the world, including the USA, has the necessary electricity grid to allow every citizen to own and operate an electric car. Imagine how much energy would be required to power millions upon millions of AI-controlled robots and machines intended to replace human labour.

Conventional green energy will not be able to achieve this, as it is extremely inefficient. Only a massive expansion of nuclear power could accomplish this (or fusion, should it ever succeed). The economic costs would be unprecedented (hundreds of trillions of dollars). The labour required to generate this energy wealth would mean MORE work for humanity, not less. This would mean more conflict, more anger, and a greater likelihood of societal collapse.

I have many problems with futurists, but what bothers me most is their habit of ignoring the human factor in their technocratic theories. An AI that rules the world is not inevitable; it depends on the voluntary consent of people, just as everything else in technocracy depends on human consent.

I’m not saying we should be “anti-technological,” but only that we can and need to be masters of technology. We determine the future, not AI. Technology is secondary and ultimately irrelevant compared to the human experience. If a technology doesn’t actually make our lives better and freer, but instead makes our existence miserable, then it should be reduced to rubble, along with the globalist institutions that demand we “own nothing and be happy.”

Author: Brandon Smith

 

yogaesoteric
December 4, 2025