From Utopian Dreams to Technocratic Reality: The Shared Vision of Elites in the 21st Century

Exploring how influential thinkers like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bertrand Russell, and the Huxleys envisioned a future driven by scientific management, technological innovation, and centralized power.

🔗 ALL my links: LinkTr.ee/TheMemoryHold

🌐 CONNECT WITH ME:

• Instagram: @Lil_Falseflag

• X: @YungNorthwoods

• TikTok: @MemoryHold1

In my Elite Mindset Analysis (EMA) series, I’ve been carefully exploring and summarizing the works of several key intellectual elites who have profoundly influenced the political, social, and technological landscapes of the 20th century and beyond. Primarily, I have focused on those elites who share a common vision for the future - one that, many years later, is being actively shaped and pursued by today’s global elites. Thinkers like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bertrand Russell, and Julian Huxley envisioned a world where centralized control, advanced technology, and engineered social structures would guide humanity toward a new era, and this vision is increasingly aligning with the actions and policies of powerful figures today.

Through an examination of their writings, my aim is to uncover the common threads that run throughout them, specifically as it pertains to their vision of the future and how it aligns with the broader, overarching agenda often discussed in our circles as the “New World Order,” the “Great Reset,” or any other term you might use to describe the world’s evolving power dynamics.

What emerges from this analysis is a strikingly unified vision, one that, while cloaked in intellectual rhetoric, is increasingly manifesting in today’s global systems, policies, and technologies. It is in these texts that they “lay it all out on the table” so to speak, and do so openly, and freely, advocating for the ideal version of this scientifically managed world. I’m talking about books and essays and documents like Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World Revisited, Julian Huxley’s UNESCO: its purpose and its philosophy, Bertrand Russell’s Scientific Impact of Science on Society and The Scientific Outlook, and Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Between Two Ages, the source for the passages below. Through these texts, we can understand what these people believe, and why they’re working so hard - still - to bring about the ideal world they’ve dreamt of for so long.

What’s particularly fascinating is the degree to which these thinkers, often separated by decades and differing ideologies, consistently advocate for a future where technological and scientific advancements serve to reshape society and governance. Whether in their utopian dreams or dystopian warnings, they all agree on one thing: the need for a more centralized, controlled world order, managed by an elite class armed with superior knowledge, science, and technology. A “scientific priest class”, so to speak. Their shared vision of governance hinges not on traditional democratic processes but on expert-led, technocratic systems designed to address the complex challenges of a rapidly evolving world. The connection to today’s global initiatives - be it climate change policies, digital surveillance, or even the rise of global technocrats - becomes undeniable as you dig deeper into their works.

By analyzing the writings of these influential figures, it becomes clear that their shared ideals are not just relics of the past but are alive and well in the present. The very institutions, policies, and technologies that are being implemented today reflect a continuation of the vision laid out by intellectuals like Russell, the Huxleys, and later thinkers like Zbigniew Brzezinski. What they envisioned - a future where social and political structures are reshaped by technological innovation, expert management, and centralized power - appears to be in the process of being realized. As we move further into the 21st century, the lines between the theoretical and the practical continue to blur, making it crucial for us to understand the intellectual roots of the world we are living in and the forces that are shaping our collective future.

This article features some of the more thought provoking passages from Zbig’s Between Two Ages that reinforce the above observations.

But first:

---

My EMA Videos:

To watch the Elite Mindset Analysis (EMA) series, check out the Patreon!

Part 1: Between Two Ages:The Coming Technetronic Era [Pt. 1] [Analysis]
Part 2: Between Two Ages:The Coming Technetronic Era [Pt. 2] [Analysis] | Also on Rokfin

My EMA Substack Articles:

[EMA #6] The Scientific Outlook

[EMA #4] Conspiracy in the Daylight (AUDIO)

The Fabian Takeover Plan: The Slow March Toward Total Enslavement

Introduction to "The New World Order" by H.G Wells: World Collectivization

---

Between Two Ages - Zbigniew Brzezinski

Critics who refuse to acknowledge that the world can be meticulously organized, managed, and controlled - especially with today's advanced communication technologies - are missing the larger picture. They demand 'smoking gun' evidence of shadowy groups like the Illuminati and their sinister plans to consolidate power, establish a one-world government, and reduce the global population. The truth is, the evidence is right in front of us - it’s just not framed as something nefarious. The elites I’ve discussed in this article openly write about their agendas: from eugenics to depopulation to uniting the planet under a single banner, even eradicating nationalism to achieve their vision. They make no secret of these plans.

Yet, this reality seems to elude critics. These individuals have plainly articulated their goals, but because they present them as benevolent - promising to reduce suffering and create global equality - many fail to see the dystopian society they are advocating for. My concern isn’t with their ideal vision of the future, but with their naive belief that individual freedom and liberty can survive the changes that are coming, and in the highly controlled world that may come about on the other side of this quest.

Maybe I’m being unjustly cynical about all this, because when it comes down to it, I advocate for innovative new uses of technology. Technology can be fuggin awesome. However, in many ways, I believe that the eradication of personal privacy and individual freedom will be a natural byproduct of the technological advancements and revolutions that are to come. In other words, it will be unavoidable, even in a best case scenario where Elites like Zbig really do stay true to their word and do their very best at preserving those freedoms while simultaneously draping a digital dragnet over the planet and carefully honing their craft of reading brainwaves.

These guys even warn us about the very world they’re advocating for, which is another reason that their explicit calls to construct this techno-utopia anyway goes over the heads of critics and debunkers. Sleepyheads. Because these guys preface their calls for technocracy with sentiments like “but watch out, this could go sideways if we aren’t careful!”, people don’t read their work as potentially malicious, or simply promoting a bad idea.

The excerpts from Zbig that I wanted to share with you all in this article starts with such a warning. On pages 252 and 253, Brzezinski warns the reader about the impact technology and innovation will have on creating a more controlled and directed society - one that would be dominated by an elite class who come to gain political power based on superior scientific knowledge:

Pg. 252-253

Another threat, less overt but no less basic, confronts liberal democracy. More directly linked to the impact of technology, it involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know­how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.

The emergence of a large dominant party, alongside the more narrowly focused and more intensely doctrinaire groupings on the right and the left, could accelerate the trend toward such technological managerialism. Such a large dominant party would combine American society's quest for stability with its historical affinity for innovation. Relying on scientific growth to produce the means for dealing with social ills, it would tap the nation's intellectual talent for broad target planning and exploit the existence of doctrinaire groups by using them as social barometers and as sources of novel ideas. Persisting social crisis, the emergence of a charismatic personality, and the exploitation of mass media to obtain public confidence would be the steppingstones in the piecemeal transformation of the United States into a highly controlled society.

In different ways, both the doctrinarian and the conservative might find the temptations inherent in the new techniques of social control too difficult to resist. The inclination of the doctrinaire left to legitimize means by ends could lead them to justify more social control on the ground that it serves progress.

This bit stood out to me:

The conservatives, preoccupied with public order and fascinated by modern gadgetry, would be tempted to use the new techniques as a response to unrest, since they would fail to recognize that social control is not the only way to deal with rapid social change.

When I read that quote, I think about how we’re currently rushing to erect high-tech Israeli-made surveillance towers to track the increasing number of illegal immigrants streaming across the border. That type of reaction only furthers their efforts to create this managerial society - implementing new privacy-neutralizing tech isn’t going to solve the root of the problem it is supposedly deployed to mitigate or stop. More Patriot Acts aren’t going to help us.

Such an outcome—were it to come to pass—would represent a profoundly pessimistic answer to the question whether American liberal democracy can assimilate and give philosophical meaning to the revolution it is undergoing. This matter not only has relevance for the United States; it has larger implications: American success or failure may provide a significant indication whether a modern democracy with highly educated citizens can successfully undergo an extensive social change without losing its essentially democratic character. Fortunately, the American transition also contains the potential for an American redemption.

In this part, Brzezinski talks about the coming Third American Revolution, which will occur in an era of volatile beliefs and of rapidly advancing technological change:

Pg. 255

Today all the world is America, in the sense that America is the first to experience the social, psychological, political, and ideological dilemmas produced by man's sudden acquisition of altogether unprecedented power over his environment and over himself. The third American revolution, occurring in an era of volatile beliefs and of rapidly spreading technological change, thus clearly dictates America's role: that of the social innovator, exploiting science in the service of man but without dogmatically prescribing the destiny of man.

Brzezinski touches on the growing recognition that the future must be planned to avoid chaos. This outlook mirrors the NWO's emphasis on deliberate, coordinated global governance where decisions are made by select elite bodies rather than through spontaneous or reactive actions. The idea of future planning in this context extends beyond national borders to envision a globally coordinated effort to shape the direction of civilization: