Global Surveillance - Quareness Series 225th "Lecture".
Back in 1947 a book (The Externalisation of the Hierarchy) was published documenting a plan describing how human civilisation would be reshaped over the following decades. The author Alice Bailey laid out a systemic approach to planetary transformation (set to unfold over the following 78 years or so) whereby existing institutions would be infiltrated and repurposed from within whilst retaining their familiar names/symbols and redirecting their fundamentals toward global control. She pointed to the rise of new networks that would link government, business and civil society into unified command systems with global crises serving as accelerators in creating the psychological environment for populations to accept rapid changes that would normally take decades to implement. As she saw it, the ultimate goal here was a planetary management system where unelected experts would make decisions for everyone and justify such by appeals to collective good and scientific necessity...all to be underpinned by advanced technology, data systems and psychological techniques monitoring and shaping human behaviour on a global scale. She envisaged a "decisive first stage" of this transformation being completed by 2025 when this hidden networking would stop operating behind the scenes and begin openly directing world affairs. And sorta "right on cue" we see in 2025 most nations signing up to the WHO Pandemic Treaty purportedly giving unelected international health officials binding legal authority to override national governments during declared emergencies (both for actual disease outbreaks and computer-modelled hypothetical scenarios based on potential pandemic drivers). Indeed such envisaged declared emergencies would also now appear to encompass climate change, biodiversity loss and virtually any environmental condition that might theoretically contribute to future health risks. Could we be heading towards increasing global bureaucratic suspension of individual rights based on predictive models rather than actual events?
Creating the philosophical and practical foundations for global management seems to have required three transformation phases. The first involved removing higher truth from human consciousness with a decades-long cultural campaign to convince us that nothing exists beyond what can be measured and managed by experts. In this process science was transforming from a method of discovery into the ultimate moral authority. The second involved establishing official institutions as the only valid source of information about reality through positioning dissent as a form of ignorance or extremism. Any questioning of official narratives became synonymous with spreading "dangerous misinformation" or "endangering our democracy" or "anti-science", etc. and censorship became rife in order to try to ensure that populations heard a single unified story on every major issue. The third phase involved deploying the technological and legal infrastructure necessary to enforce compliance, with surveillance systems monitoring behaviour as well as algorithms predicting and preventing or punishing dissent...a form of "soft" totalitarianism. And people are now rapidly being regarded as components in a machine designed for maximum system efficiency?
During the first half of the 1960s the US White House introduced and expanded a systems-based management approach ("Planning-Programming-Budgeting Systems") from the military to across the entire federal government...in effect shifting the fundamentals of being primarlly about serving the people to being about managing data flows and optimising systemic outcomes. As a follow-on the concept of planetary management emerged between 1968 and 1972 through a series of international conferences and agreements...UNESCO Biosphere Conference, Club of Rome publications, Stockholm UN Conference on the Human Environment
...all cementing the idea that our Earth needed globally centralised administration to prevent ecological and planetary collapse. The 1980s and 1990s saw absolute human rights beginning to be replaced by "rights and responsibilities" frameworks in international law and academic discourse when the Earth Summit embedded "sustainable development" as a moral duty that could override traditional notions of sovereignty. And we saw carbon emission and sequestration controls installed through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Convention on Biological Diversity.
Between 2001 and 2015 we saw World Health Organisation ethics papers redefining "human dignity" from an inherent right to something earned only through compliance with collective objectives. The WHO's "One Health" framework merged human, animal and environmental governance into a single domain as academic conferences and think tanks normalised the notion that individual rights could be suspended during declared emergencies for "the greater good". The infrastructure to implement this new code of ethics was completed between 2015 and 2019 as surveillance systems, digital identity platforms and emergency response protocols morphed from pilot programs into operational readiness.
Recognition is now growing across the planet that the COVID-19 crisis in 2020 served as the first global test of the new system. We had emergency powers bypassing normal legislative processes, digital health passes demonstrating the extent of public acceptance of compliance-based freedoms and government agencies / media organisations / technology platforms operating with unprecedented coordination in seeking to censor any divergent point of view questioning strategic decisions. Between 2021 and 2024 many "temporary" crises measures became permanent features of governance with legislative changes quietly extending emergency powers to cover climate change, artificial intelligence risks and other global issues. We've also seen a trend of international treaties and public-private partnerships fusing health, finance and environmental control into an integrated global management architecture. It seems each crisis (whether real or speculative) is being set to expand the systems reach with such as "new" climate emergencies, AI safety threats and cybersecurity incidents already positioned as the potential next triggers for extended global coordination.
Accepting this technocracy system essentially means embracing a future where rights depend on compliance scores, where algorithms make decisions once reserved for human judgment, and where global bureaucrats can ultimately override local representatives whenever they declare an emergency. It could also mean our children being raised to understand freedom as permission granted by authorities rather than an inherent birthright. Rejecting it requires the rebuilding of institutions based on different principles of transparency in emergency powers, genuine accountability for public officials and recognition that human dignity cannot /should not be conditional on compliance with expert recommendations.
Systems depend on participation and the global management apparatus needs local compliance to function effectively. However, although the window of choice in the matter appears to be rapidly closing, the option not to comply still exists for most of us. Every individual choice to resist redefinitions of basic concepts such as freedom and dignity can contribute to a larger cultural shift and engaging with businesses and organisations that operate according to human-centred rather than data-centred principles can create alternative networks.
To the extent to which this predicted 78 year plan may have been real, it's more than likely that its success depended on most people not knowing it existed. But now as the underlying thrust involved becomes visible, the choice is ours (on behalf of both ourselves and future generations) to participate or not.
Sean.
Dean of Quareness.
August, 2025.