Posts: 2,293
Threads: 55
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation:
4
TRANSHUMANISM AS A CLOSED SYSTEM RELIGION FOR THE NEW AGE
https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/tran...sed-system
In part one of this series, you were introduced to the ‘above ground’ and ‘below ground’ movements that have been carefully sculpted to quite literally, induce as many humans as possible to participate in the willful self-destruction of industrial civilization.
In part two, we explored the origins of one of the most important figure heads of the de-growth movement—Ted Kaczynski and his role as an MK Ultra victim at Harvard University.
In this third installment, we will take a deeper exploration into the sick and distorted religion of transhumanism, followed up by a healthier antidote to this psycho-spiritual disease.
The Sad Case of Yuval Noah Harari
In our confused day and age, ‘expert’ transhumanists like Yuval Noah Harari have promoted the view that technological growth itself causes “useless eaters”.
Where technological progress was once understood to be a liberating process that brought the fruits of mental labor (aka: science and technology) to the service of the humanity’s needs, with the effect of liberating humankind from living like beasts on a lord’s plantation, transhumanists have turned the philosophy of technological progress inside out.
The Closed System Religion of Transhumanism
This bizarre new philosophy posits that we have been wrong to think of technology as the consequence of the mind’s exploration of the objective universe and the application of discoveries to improve our subjective lives. It also denies that “mind” is anything more than the sum total of non-living atoms composing the physical brain.
Instead, the “new wisdom” which emerged in the wake of the cybernetics revolution of the 1960s asserted that technology grows with life all its own acting as a synthetic and deterministic ‘elan vital’ without any regard for human thought or free will.
Harari stated this explicitly, saying:
“If you have enough data, and you have enough computing power, you can understand people better than they understand themselves, and then you can manipulate them in ways that were previously impossible, and in such a situation, the old democratic systems stop functioning. We need to re-invent democracy in this new era in which humans are now hackable animals. The whole idea that humans have this ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ and have free will… that’s over.”
Following the theories of Marshall McCluhan, Sir Julian Huxley, Cybernetics founder Norbert Wiener, Jesuit transhumanist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Chardin’s intellectual heir Ray Kurzweil, these new priests of the Fourth Industrial Revolution preached a new gospel to humanity.
As a leading figure of the WEF Great Narrative Project, Harari described this new gospel, saying:
“We have no answer in the Bible [of] what to do when humans are no longer useful to the economy. You need completely new ideologies, completely new religions, and they are likely to emerge from silicon valley… and not from the Middle East. And they are likely going to give people visions based on technology. Everything that the old religions promised: Happiness and justice and even eternal life, but HERE ON EARTH, with the help of technology, and not after death with the help of some supernatural being.”
Having replaced God with Silicon Valley technocrats, Harari is certainly being sold as a “Moses” of the new post-human age which his own masters wish to usher into the world.
This synthetic religion is neo-Darwinian in character and has a few sacred cow assumptions underlying its creed. One of these assumptions is that random stochastic (and thus, intrinsically unknowable) processes on the small scale define an overarching tendency for technologies to grow inexorably towards ever greater states of a phenomenon dubbed “complexity” (i.e. the increased quantity and speed of transmission of interaction of parts of a system in space and time).
Rather than assume that a moral direction shapes the flow of upward evolution as previous generations of thinkers had presumed prior to the cybernetics cult, these new reformers were quick to assert that no such foolish notions of ‘better’ or ‘worse’ have any meaning whatsoever. This self-professed Uber menschen recognized that morality, just like God, patriotism, soul or freedom, are abstract human-made concepts having no ontological existence in the mechanistic, cold and ultimately purposeless universe in which we are presumed to exist.
Despite the randomness of stochastic behavior assumed to ‘organize’ all apparently ordered systems, these high priests are firm believers in a deterministic rigid set of “laws,” which shape our ever complexifying relationship with technology. For example, it is asserted that humans are destined to suffer the irreversible loss of mental powers of the species, with each apparent upshift of technology with A.I inevitably replacing the obsolete organic life forms the way mammals replaced dinosaurs.
On this point, Harari said,
“Humans only have two basic abilities — physical and cognitive. When machines replaced us in physical abilities, we moved on to jobs that require cognitive abilities. … If AI becomes better than us in that, there is no third field humans can move to”.
Like all transhumanists, Harari presumes that these ‘hackable minds’ devoid of soul or purpose are merely the effect of the total chemical and electric behavior of the atoms contained in the brain, and hence when he answers that these humans (which he always excludes himself from, interestingly enough) have no other purpose but to be made “happy” by the new synthetic religion, he only refers to drugs and videogames which stimulate the chemical impulses that he defines as the “cause” of happiness.
The notion of a happiness caused by non-material stimulation such as joy of discovery, joy of teaching and joy of creating something new and true plays no role in the cold calculus of such humans aspiring to become immortal machines.
Interestingly enough, this is the psycho-biological manifestation of the geopolitical doctrine of zero-sum Hobbesian thinking, which demands that all “wholes” be thought of merely as the sum of the parts making them up. Adherents to either philosophy assume that any material system which exists at any given “now” is all that can ever exist, since the existence of creative change or universal principles are denied to have any claim to existence.
Such a pathetic mind is forced to presume that the 2nd law of thermodynamics (aka: Entropy) is the only dominant law shaping all change in every closed system they try to understand, from a biosphere, to a brain, to an economy and to the entire universe, while ignoring all evidence of creative change, design and purpose built into the entire fabric of space time.
Transhumanists vs Humanists
We have already noted that transhumanist priests have preached that the powers of the human mind are irrevocably reduced with each upshift of “technology”[1].
Of course, for such an absurd thesis to be maintained, it is also requisite that only “information” technologies be brought into such considerations, or else the danger that people recognize that higher productive technologies actually liberate human beings from the repetitive manual lives of banality and liberate their powers of creative reason, which 12 hour days of brute labor never permitted be blossomed.
When technologies that pertain to the increased productive powers of humanity are introduced into this equation (as for example ever higher efficient energy sources that permit greater powers of action per capita and per square kilometer, as outlined in the five decades of writings of the late American economist Lyndon LaRouche), then the argument that asserts “humanity’s irrelevance increases in direct proportion to technology’s improvement” also breaks down.
Additionally, when one allows for the definition of science and technology to be extended rightfully to the domain of politics and moral law, the argument breaks down even further.
For, whether you knew it or not, forms of government and systems of political economy are, in actual fact, forms of technology with different designs and models crafted with objective goals which are or not attained depending upon the wisdom or folly of the framers of laws and constitutions. Unlike conventional machine designs, which will run according to the pure deterministic mechanics of physics independent of free will, the machinery of government both shapes and is in turn shaped by the willful application of human thoughts in a dance of subjective and objective phenomena.
What standards exist to judge “better” or “worse” forms of government technologies?
To answer this question, it is useful to listen to the wise words of the great German ‘poet of freedom’ Friedrich Schiller, who wrote in his 1791 Legislations of Lycurgus’ Sparta vs Solon’s Athens’:
“In general, we can establish a rule for judging political institutions, that they are only good and laudable, to the extent that they bring all forces inherent in persons to flourish, to the extent that they promote the progress of culture, or at least not hinder it. This rule applies to religious laws as well as to political ones: both are contemptible if they constrain a power of the human mind, if they impose upon the mind any sort of stagnation.
A law, for example, by which at a particular time appeared to it most fitting , such a law were an assault against mankind and laudable intents of whatever kind were then incapable of justifying it. It were immediately directed against the highest Good, against the highest purpose of society.”
Within his many essays, the great scientist, inventor and statesman Benjamin Franklin explained to the world that government was not a “science of control,” or a “science of stability” as many of the elite of both his day and ours wish to assume. Franklin, and other leading scientist-statesmen throughout history believed that government is itself better understood as an applied technology that advances a “science of happiness” whose practical expression, like any technological expression of scientific concepts, is endowed with the seeds of its own self-improvement infused into the design.
Hence the brilliant concept of the American foundational documents of 1776 and 1787, which instituted an operating principle founded upon the notion of constant self-perfectibility—the seemingly contradictory wording of “a more perfect union” (a logician would complain that this construction is an absurdity since something is either perfect/static or more better/changing, but cannot be both).
Franklin and his allies were fortunately scientists and not logicians and thus knew better.
This new form of government “of, by and for the people” was never meant to become a fixed, crystalized or static machine at any point, for it was better understood in those days that should such a stasis be imposed causing formal structures to suffocate the creative spirit that brought said law into existence, then that foolish society were doomed to decadence, stupefaction, and absolute tyranny.
Of course, society were doomed if such corruption took hold for too long, which is why Franklin and the other authors of the Declaration of Independence wrote that,
“… whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
America’s Forgotten Anti-Malthusian Heritage
This principle of self-perfectibility in both science, technology and statecraft was enunciated brilliantly by Abraham Lincoln’s economic advisor Henry C. Carey (1793-1879), who refuted the dismal science of British East India Company economists J.S. Mill and David Ricardo, who advanced the pseudo-scientific “law of diminishing returns”.
Henry C. Carey, champion of American industrial growth and anti-Malthusian
This supposed ‘law’ presumed a deterministic devaluation land over time as rents increased under a “law of exploitation” of the unfit by the “more fit”.
In his Unity of Law (1872) Carey wrote,
“Mr. Malthus having, in like manner, assumed that man had always commenced the work of cultivation on the richest soils, and that with increase of numbers it had been, and always must be, necessary to have recourse to those of an inferior description, with steadily diminishing returns to labor, Mr. Ricardo followed the theory up by assuming that constantly diminishing production had been, and must be, attended with power on the landlord’s part to take to himself a constantly increasing share, of the diminished product, leaving to the poor laborer a steadily diminishing share of a constantly declining quantity ; the growing inequality of the people of England being thus proved to be the result of a great law established by the Creator for government of the human race.
A tendency towards subjection of the masses, or, in other words, towards slavery, having been thus established as a necessary result of divine institutions, Mr. Mill certainly did not err when telling his readers that the law of the constantly decreasing productiveness of agricultural labor whose existence had been thus assumed, was ’the most important proposition in political economy;” and that, “were the law different, nearly all the phenomena of the production and distribution of wealth would be different.”
These closed system theories advanced by all British Imperial economists were not only the basis upon which Marx and Engel’s crafted their theory of “class struggle” (ignoring entirely the existence of the anti-imperial economic school then active in the USA), but were also the basis of the Club of Rome’s 1968 neo-Malthusian revival, which saw computer models used to justify supposedly “fixed limits to humanity’s growth”.
These models were incorporated into the World Economic Forum during the 1973 event that saw the crafting of the ‘Davos Manifesto,’ outlining Schwab’s notions of “Stakeholder Capitalism”.
In his Unity of Law [2], Henry C. Carey demonstrated not only that technological progress caused unproductive lands to become more productive over time, but also proved that the power to support life increased rather than diminished with increased returns to all parties in a non-zero sum system of mutual cooperation.
Carey zeroed in on the simple ratio of human mentation to the force of nature as a reciprocal interaction over time. In this interplay of the so-called “subjective” forces of mind and the “objective” forces of nature’s laws, a coherence between humanity and the discovered laws of creation was firmly established.
Carey says of this interplay,
“The more perfect that power [of self-direction], the greater is the tendency towards increased control of mind over matter; the wretched slave to nature gradually yielding place to the master of nature, in whom the feeling of responsibility to his family, his country, his Creator and himself, grows with the growth of power to guide and direct the vast and various forces placed at his command.”
From 1787 to John F. Kennedy’s 1963 murder, the general trend of the US republic specifically, and the western world more broadly was admittedly turbulent and often self-destructive, due in large measure to the subversive hand of London-centered deep state operations active across the globe.
Recall the great president’s 1961 speech to the American Academy of Sciences, where he took aim at the virus of Thomas Malthus, saying,
“Malthus argued a century and a half ago that man, by using up all his available resources, would forever press on the limits of subsistence, thus condemning humanity to an indefinite future of misery and poverty. We can now begin to hope and, I believe, know that Malthus was expressing not a law of nature, but merely the limitation then of scientific and social wisdom.”
But despite this turbulence, a general ethic founded upon a love for technological progress, God, nation, truth, and family prevailed, and for the most part a tendency of each generation living in a better world than the one left behind by previous generations was the norm. Within this value system, it was generally understood that the moral, scientific and political aims of the species were united in a single tapestry of self-perfection and freedom.
Despite the loud clamoring of Malthusians and eugenicists to the contrary, the material facts of man’s relationship to nature over the past several thousand years support the ideas of Franklin, Carey and Kennedy.
Every time the people are provided with the proper political liberties and economic opportunities, humanity increased not only her “carrying capacities” in ways that no other species of animal could do, rising from one billion souls in 1800 to nearly 8 billion today, but also leaping from life expectancies, averaging 40 years of age in 1800 (in the USA) to 78 years today.
Meanwhile, per capita productivity has tended to increase along with political emancipation (at least until the economic financial coup of 1971 as far as the trans-Atlantic society has been concerned).
Eurasia and the Defense of Natural Law
While coherence with natural law (both scientific, and moral) has been dislodged in the western world during the past half century, giving way to a transhumanist, neo-eugenicist pseudo-religion underlying a unipolar rules-based order, the torch has been picked up by leading statesmen across Eurasia, who have decided to resist the trend towards a neo-feudal dystopia.
In an address to the XXV St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, President Putin described his concept of technological growth, industrial improvement and multipolarity in the following terms:
“Technological development is a cross-cutting area that will define the current decade and the entire 21st century. We will review in depth our approaches to building a ground-breaking technology-based economy – a techno economy – at the upcoming Strategic Development Council meeting.
There is so much we can discuss. Most importantly, many managerial decisions must be made in the sphere of engineering education and transferring research to the real economy, and the provision of financial resources for fast-growing high-tech companies.
Changes in the global economy, finances and international relations are unfolding at an ever-growing pace and scale. There is an increasingly pronounced trend in favour of a multipolar growth model in lieu of globalisation. Of course, building and shaping a new world order is no easy task. We will have to confront many challenges, risks, and factors that we can hardly predict or anticipate today.
Still, it is obvious that it is up to the strong sovereign states, those that do not follow a trajectory imposed by others, to set the rules governing the new world order. Only powerful and sovereign states can have their say in this emerging world order. Otherwise, they are doomed to become or remain colonies devoid of any rights.”
Compare these concepts with the dismal view of Harari and his transhumanist patrons,
who are devoutly committed to a unipolar order of stasis and an end to history, when Harari describes technology’s role in creating a new “post-revolutionary” global useless class forever under the dominance by the emergent “high caste” of golden collar Davos elites:
“The high caste which dominates the new technology won’t exploit the poor. They just won’t need them. And it’s much more difficult to rebel against irrelevance than against exploitation.”
Since the technology has rendered the majority of humanity useless, and since the emergent new form of technetronic unipolar governance will render all potential for revolution obsolete, the question in Harari’s mind becomes what will be done with the plague of useless eaters spread across the globe?
Here, Harari follows in the footsteps pioneered by his earlier soul mate Aldous Huxley during his infamous 1962 ‘Ultimate Revolution’ lecture at Berkley College by pointing to the important role to be played by drugs and video games:
“I think the biggest question in economics and politics in the coming decades will be ‘what to do with all these useless people?’
I don’t think we have an economic model for that… the problem is more boredom and what to do with them and how will they find some sense of meaning in life when they are basically meaningless, worthless?
My best guess at present, is a combination of drugs and computer games”.
Looking at the two diametrically opposed paradigms clashing over the operating system that will shape the role of technology, economy, diplomacy, science, and industrial progress into the 21st century and beyond, it is worth asking … which one you would prefer shape the lives of your children?
Bio: I am the editor-in-chief of The Canadian Patriot Review, Senior Fellow of the American University in Moscow and Director of the Rising Tide Foundation. I’ve written the four volume Untold History of Canada series, four volume Clash of the Two Americas series, the Revenge of the Mystery Cult Trilogy and Science Unshackled: Restoring Causality to a World in Chaos. I am also co-host of the weekly Breaking History on Badlands Media and host of Pluralia Dialogos (which airs every second Sunday at 11am ET here).
Posts: 2,293
Threads: 55
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation:
4
ON THE BACKS OF DIGITAL SLAVES : MUSK, OTHER TRUMP ERA TECH ELITES BUILDING GLOBAL DIGITAL CONTROL GRID
https://www.technocracy.news/on-the-back...trol-grid/
RAND CORPORATION : “INTERNET OF BODIES MAY LEAD TO INTERNET OF BRAINS ” By 2050
https://www.technocracy.news/rand-corpor...ns-by-2050
Hive mind. The Collective. Hyper-reality. The Borg. RAND Corp. has been a think tank closely associated with the Trilateral Commission since 1973, producing studies like this. All roads lead back to the military in their quest to create the perfect "super soldier," shades of Hitler's "Superman." The military is chock full of narcissistic Technocrats whose holy grail is and always has been to "Master the Human Domain."
BILL GATES AND UN BEHIND “DIGITAL PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE ” FOR GLOBAL CONTROL
https://www.technocracy.news/bill-gates-...l-control/
Bill Gates is an evil genius who clawed his way to the top by applying predatory business practices at Microsoft; a leopard doesn't change spots and now Gates wants to dominate the whole world by masterminding a global ID system. A master Technocrat, Gates follows the philosophy of early Technocracy.
BILL GATES : WITHIN 10 YEARS, HUMANS WON’T BE NEEDED FOR ‘FOR MOST THINGS’
https://www.technocracy.news/bill-gates-...st-things/
Humans are endowed with intelligence. Machines are not. This is the great fakery. Here is the ignorant fallacy: Microsoft CEO says that "will unlock enormous amounts of economic growth, but they are fundamentally labor replacing." first, human work is the source of all economic activity; second, if "wages crash," as Marc Andreessen thinks, it will crash the economy. Are they really this stupid, or are they just gaslighting the world?
TRANSHUMANISM : COVID INJECTIONS AND THE INTERNET OF BIO-NANO THINGS
https://www.technocracy.news/transhumani...gs-part-4/
The whole world is a stage, and the people are actors wrapped in deception inside a simulacra. Military-inspired transhumanism has learned to hide in plain sight by cloaking its existence with diversions, subterfuge, and propaganda. The real truth behind the "Great Panic of 2020" goes beyond concerns about global health and dives into BioNano warfare designed to bring produce Humanity 2.0. As Noah Yuval Harari has boasted, it is "technology under your skin."
UNDER THE SKIN : THE INTERNET OF BIO-NANO THINGS
https://www.technocracy.news/under-the-s...ano-things
First, there was the Internet of Things (IoT), then the Internet of Bodies (IoB), the Internet of Everything (IoE), and finally, Big Pharma and the military are going into your blood to construct the Internet of Bio-NanoThings (IoBNT). You might have hoped for the Internet of Nothing, but instead, you are getting the Internet Of Universal Skynet (IoUS).
TRANSHUMANIST SCIENTISTS CREATE EMBRYOS FROM SKIN CELLS AND SPERM
https://www.technocracy.news/transhumani...-and-sperm
Do these Transhuman scientists really care about millions of women who cannot produce normal eggs? Or are they chasing the Brave New World dream to create genetically-engineered life to put it into artificial wombs? Not one whit of similar research would take place without public funding, yet they hide behind platitudes about helping hapless women who can't reproduce.
CRIMINAL MINDS SEE THE INTERNET OF THINGS IS THE NEXT BIG HACKING PRIZE
https://www.technocracy.news/criminal-mi...ing-prize/
Technocrats are building out the Internet of Things using 5G wireless communications to connect everything that can be connected. However, the IoT is infinitely hackable because of so many unsecured points of entry. This hackable playground is also extending to the Internet of Everything and the Internet of Bodies. Imagine someone gaining access to a patient's pacemaker and turning it off.
Posts: 2,293
Threads: 55
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation:
4
GLOBAL GEOPOLITICS IN 2025 :
A STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT. “HARSH BIRTH OF THE MULTIPOLAR ORDER ”
https://www.globalresearch.ca/global-geo...nt/5910491
SCIENTISTS CREATE STRAIN OF BIRD FLU THAT HAS 100% DEATH RATE IN MAMMALS
https://www.technocracy.news/scientists-...in-mammals
PETE HEGSETH SAYS AI IS GOD GIVEN MANIFEST DESTINY
https://www.technocracy.news/pete-hegset...t-destiny/
Posts: 2,293
Threads: 55
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation:
4
Posts: 2,293
Threads: 55
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation:
4
TRUMP's “WILD WEST” AND THE GREENLAND MOVE
“Greenland is Ours …The U.S. is Ready to Use Force …
”By Ret Admiral Cem Gürdeniz
https://www.globalresearch.ca/operation-...to/5912569
PAX SILICA DECLARATION SIGNALS THE AI COLONISATION OF THE WORLD
https://www.technocracy.news/pax-silica-...-the-world
CAN PAX SILICA SECURE THE FUTURE OF AI COMPUTE POWER ?
https://aimagazine.com/news/pax-silica-g...pply-chain
Posts: 2,293
Threads: 55
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation:
4
GLOBAL VISION 2000 FORTHCOMING EDITORIAL WILL SHINE LIGHT ON THE DARKNESS BROADCASTED BY THE HIGH PRIESTS OF THE DAVOS TEMPLE
[/url]
TECHNOCRAT IN CHIEF , THE MONARCH OF AMERICA
CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF PEACE
https://www.technocracy.news/technocrat-...d-of-peace
2026: THE YEAR OF THE ROBOTS
https://www.technocracy.news/2026-the-ye...he-robots/
YUVAL HARARI AT DAVOS : AI WILL TAKE OVER ALL WORLD RELIGIONS
https://www.technocracy.news/yuval-harar...religions/
DAVOS WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM (WEF) 2026:
COLLAPSE OF NEOLIBERALISM, TRADE IS NOW A WEOPON
https://www.globalresearch.ca/reflections-davos-26-geopolitics/5913651
Posts: 2,293
Threads: 55
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation:
4
Posts: 2,293
Threads: 55
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation:
4
THE MORAL HAZARDS OF WAR AND HOW THEY
ACCELERATE TECHNOCRACY
https://www.technocracy.news/the-moral-h...chnocracy/
Posts: 2,293
Threads: 55
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation:
4
Posts: 2,293
Threads: 55
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation:
4
THE ARCHITECTURE OF DIGITAL SLAVERY:
WHY CENTRAL BANKS NEED PROGRAMMABLE MONEY
Imagine a world in which your savings no longer belong to you, and the concept of private property is erased at the fundamental level of algorithmic code. We stand on the threshold of an unprecedented financial shift, where traditional means of exchange are replaced by programmable digital currencies, tightly controlled by extraterritorial structures, bypassing traditional jurisdictions. At the center of this massive transformation is the Bank for International Settlements in Basel—a closed organization with absolute diplomatic immunity that shapes the shadow processes of the global economy. It was this institution that developed the architecture of the Single Global Ledger, a system designed to unite disparate national finances into an unregulated central matrix. The tokenization of physical assets, being tested in projects like Agora, legally blurs the line between money and property, transforming ownership into a conditional lease, controlled through hidden master keys in smart contracts. The integration of such programmable money with artificial intelligence, carbon trackers, and predictive compliance systems creates an unprecedented mechanism of microcontrol. Algorithms are capable of blocking access to funds based on probabilistic models even before a crime is committed, while artificial expiration dates and negative interest rates are used to mask a global debt collapse. With the methodical dismantling of old financial systems and the complete abandonment of cash, the economy is turning into a closed algorithmic trap, completely eliminating the possibility of traditional capital accumulation. This story is only part of a larger picture of the hidden transformation of our society. Subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications to stay up-to-date with new in-depth investigations. Do you believe there is a legal or technological way to preserve financial autonomy in the era of programmable money, or is integration into the Unified Ledger already inevitable? Share your opinion in the comments. #digitalmoney #economy #SingleLedger #finance #CBDC #investigation #banks #globalization ? SOURCES: Project Agora: Tokenization of International Payments (BIS, 2024) Single Ledger: Blueprint for the Financial Architecture of the Future (BIS Annual Economic Report, 2023) Project mBridge: Currency Bridge (BIS Innovation Hub, 2022-2024) Digital Ruble and Tokenization: Bank of Russia Report (Central Bank of Russia, 2023) Programmable Money and Transaction Control (The Lancet Economics Research, 2024) Risks of Deanonymization in Public and Private Blockchains (Nature Machine Intelligence, 2023)
TOKENIZATION OF REAL WORLD ASSETS IS A TOOL OF CONQUEST, NOT LIBERATION
https://www.technocracy.news/tokenizatio...iberation/
The promoters of real-world asset tokenization use the language of liberation. Democratization. Financial inclusion. Access for all. Frictionless ownership. These are the words of a sales pitch. The documents tell a different story.
When you strip away the marketing and read the legal frameworks, the regulatory architecture, the institutional white papers, and the published visions of the men building this system, a single conclusion emerges with prosecutorial clarity: tokenization is not a new form of ownership. It is a new form of conquest. And the conquered will not know what happened to them until the system is complete.
This article presents the verdict. The evidence is already in the record.
I. The Word They Chose: Usufruct
Start with the language. Not the promotional language, but the legal language.
The late Dr. Michael S. Coffman, a good friend of this editor, spent decades investigating the legal frameworks embedded in United Nations environmental and land governance documents. What he found was not subtle. The UN’s own legal drafters had chosen a specific term to describe the relationship between individuals and land under their proposed governance frameworks. The term was usufruct.
Coffman did not invent this framework and impose it on UN documents. He found it inside them. Then he investigated what the word actually meant.
His conclusion, published in 2014, was precise:[1]
“By definition, usufructuary rights are the rights to use and enjoy the profits and advantages of something belonging to another, as long as the property is not damaged or altered in any way. Conceptually, it is similar to renting or leasing something within limits set by its true owner. The usufruct system of property use is derived from the Latin word ususfructus. Originally it defined Roman property interests between a master and his slave held under a usus fructus bond. The Romans expanded this concept to create an estate of uses in land rather than an estate of possession. Having seized lands belonging to conquered kingdoms, the Romans considered them public lands, and rented [ususfructus] them to Roman soldiers. Thus the emperor retained the estate [possession] in the lands, but gave the occupier an estate of uses.”
Read that definition again. The estate of possession — title, ultimate control, the right to revoke — remains with the sovereign. The occupier receives an estate of uses — the right to work the land, collect its fruit, and pay tribute — for as long as the sovereign permits.
This is not a metaphor for what tokenization does. This is the precise legal architecture of every major institutional real-world asset tokenization platform operating today.
The UN chose this word deliberately. Their legal drafters are among the most sophisticated in the world. When they write usufruct into a convention, they know exactly what they are invoking: a two-thousand-year-old conquest administration tool, first deployed by an empire that needed to incentivize soldiers to occupy foreign territory without surrendering imperial control over it.
Coffman saw Stage One of this system clearly: regulatory usufruct applied to American land through environmental and biodiversity frameworks. He did not live to see Stage Three. But he handed us the vocabulary.
II. The Digital Usufruct
Real-world asset (RWA) tokenization is the conversion of physical assets into digital tokens on a blockchain. Proponents describe it as a revolution in ownership. Larry Fink of BlackRock calls it “the next generation for markets, the next generation for securities.”[2] In his 2025 Annual Chairman’s Letter, he stated it plainly: “Every stock, every bond, every fund, every asset can be tokenized.”[3]
Examine the architecture of what BlackRock has actually built.
BlackRock’s BUIDL fund is a tokenized money market fund built on the Ethereum blockchain. It is permissioned, meaning access requires identity verification. Token transfers are restricted to whitelisted counterparties. The underlying assets are held in institutional custody. The smart contract governing the tokens includes freeze functions and forced redemption capabilities controlled by BlackRock as administrator.[4]
The token holder does not hold the underlying asset. He holds a yield-bearing instrument representing a beneficial interest in an institutionally managed pool. He receives the income stream. He does not hold title.
This is Coffman’s Roman framework, digitized.
The token holder is the frontier soldier. He believes he is a settler. He is a usufructuary. He receives the fruit of the land. The emperor holds the land.
Franklin Templeton’s BENJI fund operates on the same architecture. Securitize — the dominant tokenization platform serving BlackRock, Hamilton Lane, and KKR — enforces transfer restrictions, freeze functions, and forced redemption capabilities at the contract level.[5] Ondo Finance delivers tokenized treasury yields to retail participants without custody of the underlying securities.
Every major platform has a freeze function. Every major platform requires identity verification. Every major platform places the underlying asset in institutional custody. This is not incidental. It is the architecture. The estate of possession remains with the institution. The token holder receives an estate of uses. The vocabulary has changed. The property structure has not.
III. Programmability Is the Weapon
Traditional property is dumb. A deed does nothing on its own. It cannot expire. It cannot restrict land use. It cannot enforce carbon limits or penalize political dissent or auto-liquidate when its holder falls out of regulatory favor.
A tokenized asset can be coded to do all of these things. Not as a hypothetical — as a documented feature that regulators and ESG compliance frameworks are actively requesting.
The World Economic Forum’s 2025 report on asset tokenization, produced in collaboration with Accenture, explicitly identifies programmability—the ability to embed compliance rules, conditional transfers, and automated governance directly into smart contracts—as a core value proposition of tokenized assets.[6] The report acknowledges what it calls the “paradox of programmability”: the same smart contract features that automate efficiency also embed constraints that limit the holder’s control over the asset.
Coffman’s usufruct definition contains a clause that now deserves its own analysis: “as long
as the property is not damaged or altered in any way.”
In the Roman system, this condition was enforced by a magistrate. The occupier’s rights were conditional on compliance with the sovereign’s definition of acceptable use.
In the tokenized system, this condition is enforced by code. The programmable compliance layer does what the magistrate once did, but faster, automatically, and at global scale. Carbon limits. Land-use restrictions. Behavioral parameters. ESG scoring. The condition of occupancy is embedded in the smart contract itself.
Private property, in the Western legal tradition, is defined by what legal scholars call the bundle of rights: the right to use, exclude, transfer, encumber, and destroy. Remove any of these and you have something less than property.
Programmable tokens remove all of them conditionally, and that conditionality is controlled by whoever holds the administrator key. When the issuer can freeze, claw back, or modify the parameters of your asset, it is not your asset. It is a revocable license, dressed in the language of ownership, enforced by code instead of a magistrate. The mechanism has been modernized. The subjection has not.
IV. The Conqueror Controls Both Sides
Coffman described the Roman usufruct as a system in which the emperor controlled both the land and the occupier’s relationship to it. The conqueror held the estate of possession. He also set the terms of the estate of uses. He controlled both sides of the equation.
In the tokenized real-world asset system, the institutional tokenizer controls both sides simultaneously.
The token owner receives yield, income generated by the underlying asset. The tenant or occupant uses the property and pays rent, generating the income stream that produces the yield. The institutional tokenizer sits in the middle, holding legal title, controlling the smart contract, collecting management fees from both the income stream and the token issuance, and setting the conditions under which both the tenant and the token holder operate.
BlackRock’s stated ambition is to tokenize every real asset. If that ambition is realized, there is no exit into untokenized property. The entire investable universe passes through the institutional tokenizer’s custody and compliance architecture. There is no outside.
That is not a market. That is a closed system.
Technocracy has a name for this. It is called a Technate: an energy-based command economy administered by technical experts, in which all resources are managed centrally and allocated according to technical parameters rather than market prices or individual choice. The 1930s Technocracy movement was explicit about this goal. What has changed since is not the objective. What has changed is the technology available to implement it.
The tokenized real-world asset ecosystem is the Technate’s property layer. The central bank digital currency is its monetary layer. The digital identity credential is its identity layer. Together, they form a closed system in which every transaction, every occupancy, every yield payment, and every property transfer passes through infrastructure controlled by a small number of institutions operating under a regulatory charter from the sovereign above them.
V. The Hierarchy of Conquerors
BlackRock appears to be the conqueror. It is not the ultimate one.
The system has multiple conqueror layers, each extracting tribute from the layer below. Each layer above controls the layer beneath it, not with armies, but with access.
At the bottom: the tenant, paying rent, generating cash flow, holding no title.
Above the tenant: the token holder, receiving yield, believing he is an owner, holding an estate of uses.
Above the token holder: the institutional tokenizer (BlackRock, JPMorgan Onyx, Franklin Templeton, Securitize) holding legal title in custody, controlling the smart contract, governing the compliance architecture.
Above the institutional tokenizer: the regulatory sovereign (the SEC, OFAC, the Basel Committee, the Financial Stability Board), which can direct, restrict, freeze, or restructure the institutional tokenizer’s operations at any time. BlackRock does not own its position. It licenses it. When the regulatory sovereign commands, BlackRock complies. The attempt to sanction Tornado Cash’s smart contract code in August 2022 demonstrated the ambition: OFAC placed a decentralized protocol on the Specially Designated Nationals list, establishing that regulators would attempt to make code itself illegal.[7] Though the Fifth Circuit overturned that designation in November 2024 on narrow statutory grounds, the regulatory appetite was fully exposed. The institutional ecosystem adjusted its compliance architecture without resistance.
Bank for International Settlements.
The BIS is not a treaty organization. It is not a democratic institution. It was formally created on February 27, 1930, as a limited liability company incorporated under Swiss law, with member central banks as shareholders.[8] It pays dividends. It holds assets. It enjoys absolute immunity from Swiss jurisdiction and from every national legal system under the Headquarters Agreement concluded with the Swiss Federal Council on February 10, 1987.[9]
No court can compel it. No government can audit it without its consent. No treaty supersedes its operational independence.
The BIS sets binding rules for every regulated bank in every member jurisdiction through the Basel capital framework. These are not suggestions. Comply or be excluded from the global correspondent banking system. The BIS does not enforce compliance with armies. It enforces it with access. This is more effective than military conquest because it is invisible, technical, and appears to be nothing more than prudent financial regulation.
The BIS Innovation Hub is building the monetary substrate for the entire tokenized property ecosystem: Project Agorá, Project Mariana, Project Dunbar, and the Unified Ledger concept.[10] When complete, every CBDC, every tokenized deposit, and every tokenized real-world asset will settle through the infrastructure that the BIS designed and governs.
BIS General Manager Agustín Carstens made the agenda explicit at an IMF seminar on October 19, 2020: “A key difference with a CBDC is that the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability. And also, we will have the technology to enforce that.”[11]
You cannot fully own a tokenized asset purchased with money that can be switched off.
The BIS is the Ultimate SovCorp, the emperor whose name does not appear on the land grant, but without whose authority no land grant is valid.
VI. The Proof of Concept Is Running
The usufruct system requires a predicate condition: the elimination of existing title. You cannot tokenize contested property. You need a clean slate, a jurisdiction where prior ownership claims have been erased, suspended, or deemed invalid by sovereign authority.
Gaza provided that condition.
The reconstruction framework for Gaza — documented across the Board of Peace, Project Sunrise, and affiliated Gulf sovereign wealth structures — represents the first full-scale deployment of a tokenized governance model applied to land and resource rights in a post-conflict territory. The principals are public: Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, Tahnoun bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi’s Royal Group, and the sovereign wealth ecosystems of the UAE and Saudi Arabia. The affiliated tokenization infrastructure includes World Liberty Financial and its USD1 stablecoin, backed by Tether reserves and Gulf sovereign capital.
The model is straightforward. Sovereign authority tokenizes land and resource rights. It issues yield-bearing tokens to investors. It administers the territory through a technocratic governance layer. Residents receive digital identity credentials and programmable benefit tokens. Not deeds. Not title. Programmable access — conditional on compliance with parameters set by the governing authority.
This is not a conspiracy theory. The principals named themselves. The governance architecture is documented. The capital flows are traceable.
It is also not new. It is Roman. The emperor seizes the territory of a conquered kingdom. He considers the land public. He rents it — ususfructus — to his soldiers and settlers. He retains the estate. They receive the estate of uses.
Coffman described the Wildlands Project as Stage One of this system applied to American land through regulatory usufruct. Gaza is Stage Three applied in real time to a post-conflict territory — with digital identity, programmable currency, and tokenized property rights replacing the regulatory overlay with something far more comprehensive and far more difficult to escape.
When the model works in a controlled environment, it gets scaled. Ukraine reconstruction documents reference similar frameworks. NEOM and associated smart city projects integrate tokenized land administration explicitly. The proof of concept is running. The scale-up is funded.
The Verdict
The evidence is not ambiguous, and the conclusion is not speculative.
Real-world asset tokenization, as designed and deployed by the actual institutions with actual capital in actual regulatory frameworks, is a digital implementation of the Roman usufruct — updated for the twenty-first century with programmable smart contracts, biometric identity credentials, CBDC monetary rails, and a regulatory compliance architecture that closes every exit.
The original owner is displaced altogether and reappears as a tenant.
The token holder is not an owner. He is a usufructuary, holding an estate of uses while the estate of possession remains with the institutional administrator above him.
The tenant is not a renter in a free market. He is a productive occupant in a hierarchical system where the terms of his occupancy are set by an institution that also controls the token holder above him.
The institutional tokenizer is not a market intermediary. He is a provincial governor — holding title in custody, issuing yield tokens to the investor class, collecting rent from the occupant class, and governing the province under a charter from the regulatory sovereign above him.
The regulatory sovereign is not a neutral referee. He is a layer of the conquering hierarchy — setting the rules under which the governor operates, enforcing compliance with access rather than armies, and answering ultimately to the BIS above him.
The BIS is the emperor. It holds no land directly. It issues no currency directly. But without its monetary framework, no currency is valid. Without its capital standards, no bank operates. Without its settlement infrastructure, no tokenized asset can clear. It retains the ultimate estate in the global monetary system, and from that position, it controls everything that depends on monetary access. Everything does.
Private property is not being seized. It is being converted — from a right into a subscription. From dominion over a thing to a programmable, revocable, conditional claim to yield from a thing managed by others.
The UN chose the word usufruct deliberately. Coffman found it and told us what it meant. The Technocrats have since built the digital infrastructure to implement it at a civilizational scale. And the frontier soldiers, the token holders who believe they are investors, are being settled into a system they do not yet understand, generating cash flows that ascend through every layer above them to the emperor at the top.
The emperor never left. He just incorporated.
ENDNOTES
[1] Michael S. Coffman, “Background to the Wildlands Project,” Agenda 21 News, September 18, 2014. https://agenda21news.com/2014/09/backgro...s-project/
[2] Larry Fink, remarks at New York Times DealBook Summit, November 2022. Reported: “BlackRock CEO Says ‘Next Generation for Markets’ Is Tokenization,” Yahoo Finance, December 1, 2022. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/blackrock...11520.html
[3] Larry Fink, “2025 Annual Chairman’s Letter to Investors,” BlackRock, 2025. https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/inve...ans-letter
[4] BlackRock USD Institutional Digital Liquidity Fund (BUIDL), fund documentation and Securitize transfer agent agreement, 2024. See also: “BlackRock Launches First Tokenized Fund on a Public Blockchain,” BlackRock press release, March 20, 2024.
[5] Securitize, “Transfer Agent and Compliance Infrastructure,” platform documentation, 2024. Securitize serves as transfer agent for BlackRock BUIDL, Hamilton Lane SCOPE, and KKR tokenized funds.
[6] World Economic Forum and Accenture, “Asset Tokenization in Financial Markets: The Next Generation of Value Exchange,” May 2025. https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Ass...s_2025.pdf
[7] U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, designation of Tornado Cash, August 8, 2022 (SDN List). Subsequently: Van Loon et al. v. Department of the Treasury, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, November 26, 2024 (designation overturned on statutory grounds). OFAC delisted Tornado Cash on March 21, 2025.
[8] Bank for International Settlements, formally established Rome, February 27, 1930, under the Hague Agreement of January 20, 1930; incorporated as a limited liability company under Swiss law. See: BIS, “Legal information,” https://www.bis.org/about/legal.htm; also BIS Profile (1999), https://www.bis.org/about/profil99.htm
[9] Headquarters Agreement between the Bank for International Settlements and the Swiss Federal Council, February 10, 1987. The Agreement confirms the BIS’s immunity from Swiss jurisdiction and from seizure. See: BIS, “Legal information,” https://www.bis.org/about/legal.htm
[10] BIS Innovation Hub, project documentation: Project Agorá (tokenized cross-border payments), Project Mariana (FX tokenization), Project Dunbar (multi-CBDC platform), and “BluePrint for the Future Monetary System,” BIS Annual Economic Report, June 2023. https://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2023e3.htm
[11] Agustín Carstens, General Manager, BIS, remarks at IMF seminar “Cross-Border Payments — A Vision for the Future,” October 19, 2020 (at 22:52). Widely reported; transcript confirmed by multiple contemporaneous sources.
|
