[Firestarter]

James Corbett interviews Iain Davis on the New World Order enabled by technocracy.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/EWJIb1qP6xMb/
https://www.corbettreport.com/davis-newworldorder/


It certainly is strange that governments worldwide have been taking away the last of our freedoms to implement the technocratic Great Reset, after the WHO (with only an advisory role) declared a "pandemic" in March 2020...

Technocratic legitimacy and political legitimacy seem to be intertwined in the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. For the world’s leading authority over global health issues, the importance of the WHO’s technocratic legitimacy is that “decision-makers consider the scientific nature of some problems to be beyond” political discussions. But if a decision that is supposed to be grounded in scientific evidence is susceptible to political pressure, then the expert-based legitimacy would necessarily be discounted.

https://www.californialawreview.org/weak...ority-who/


The following paper is an interesting discussion on technocracy (as opposed to democracy) during the plandemic...

One of the most prevalent misunderstandings is considering technocracy in opposition to politics: a widespread attitude initially supported by Habermas (1971) and other scholars such as Putnam (1977), Fischer (1990) and Esmark (2017). According to Habermas, the Second World War period saw a “new or second phase in the rationalization process” which Max Weber had already comprehended as the basis for bureaucratic domination, defined by the “scientization of politics”. In this technocratic model, the relationship between the professional expert and the politician appears to have effectively “reversed itself”, making the latter «a mere agent of a scientific intelligentsia, which, in concrete circumstances, elaborates the objective implications and requirements of available techniques and resources as well as optimal strategies and rules of control» (Habermas, 1971, p. 63).
(...)

At the top level, starting with the World Health Organization (WHO), such structures have just had an advisory role: “suggesting” and “monitoring”, rather than deciding, are their responsibilities. Different from structures like the ECB, they are weak technocratic institutions, depending on politics and its discretionary power. Nevertheless, their role has been fundamental in pushing governments towards stronger containment measures, including lockdown strategies and, at the same time, justifying them to the public on behalf of the science community.
(...)

If we consider the whole complex of socio-political effects emerging due to the lockdown situation and, in general, the way of managing the struggle against the virus, it is possible to identify some similarities between the traditional police state and current political configuration; particularly the relationship between the state and its citizens:
1. The re-organisation of the whole state activity towards the aim of protecting citizens and to directly assure their well-being,
2. The need to regulate every aspect of social life, including social, informal relationships,
3. The reduction of many civil rights, particularly the right of freedom of movement,
4. The need for discipline and self-discipline as well as a more cogent informal social control to implement the rule of law as well as to protect public and individual health,
5. A massive use of law enforcement agencies to control citizens’ behaviour.

http://rtsa.eu/RTSA_2_2020_Antonelli.pdf
(https://archive.ph/kb6SC)