Truth Over Tyranny: Biblical wisdom for defeating the Technocrats.
These are my insights for defeating the Transhumanist Technocracy movement, based on the teachings of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, of blessed memory, on the weekly Bible portion.
One of the key reasons why the Hebrew Bible is for me the source of Truth, is that it does not use rose-colored glasses when portraying the lives of our Biblical heroes. It shows the good, the bad, and the ugly about our spiritual ancestors. In doing so, it empowers us modern-day readers to learn from their mistakes, as we confront dilemmas similar to ones they did long ago.
From this point of view, the story of Joseph as the Viceroy of Egypt is very instructive for dealing with a major problem of today: the attempted “Great Reset” by the World Economic Forum, and other globalists.
Here is a short overview of that effort:
Who Will Eventually Own Everything, Including You?
“The vast majority of the world’s assets are owned by just two investment firms — BlackRock and the Vanguard Group. Combined, they have ownership in nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms, and through their investment holdings they secretly wield monopoly control over all industries.”
“By now you may be familiar with the World Economic Forum slogan, “By 2030, you will own nothing.” To that end, BlackRock and other investment firms are buying up every single-family home they can find, making cash offers of 20% to 50% above asking price.”
“Buying a home has been part of the American dream since the founding of this country. It’s been a significant part of financial success, security and freedom. George Washington declared that “Private Property and freedom are inseparable.” Now, lower to middle class Americans are being intentionally positioned to become permanent renters, which means they cannot build equity.”
“This is wealth redistribution from the low- and middle-class to the upper, and it’s in line with plans for societal reorganization described under banners such as The Great Reset, Build Back Better, Agenda 21 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
“These agendas all work together toward the same goal, which is a global monopoly on ownership and wealth, with a clear separation of the haves and have nots; the owners and the owned; the rulers and the ruled; the elite and the serfs.”
At the end of the day, this comparatively tiny group of people want to control all resources, and make us slaves to their technocratic rule.
This is not very different from what happened in Joseph’s time. In his commentary on Parashat Mikketz called “Joseph and the Risks of Power.” Rabbi Sacks shows how Joseph actually became the first technocrat.
It started as the Egyptians were preparing for the approaching famine:
“It begins when the Egyptians have used up all their money buying grain. They come to Yosef asking for food, telling him they will die without it, and he replies by telling them he will sell it to them in exchange for ownership of their livestock. They willingly do so: they bring their horses, donkeys, sheep and cattle. The next year he sells them grain in exchange for their land. The result of these transactions is that within a short period of time – seemingly a mere three years – he has transferred to Pharaoh’s ownership all the money, livestock and private land, with the exception of the land of the Priests, which he allowed them to retain.
Not only this, but the Torah tells us that Yosef “removed the population town by town, from one end of Egypt’s border to the other” (Bereishit 47:21) – a policy of enforced resettlement that would later in history be used against Israel by the Assyrians.”
The Egyptians were apparently so desperate, they actually agreed to become slaves:
“The question is – was Yosef right to do this? Seemingly, he did it of his own accord. He was not asked to do so by Pharaoh. The result of all these policies is that unprecedented wealth and power were now concentrated in Pharaoh’s hand – power that would eventually be used against the Israelites. More seriously, twice we encounter the phrase avadim le-Faro, “slaves to Pharaoh” – one of the key phrases in the Exodus account and in the answer to the questions of the child in the Seder service (Bereishit 47:19, 25). With this difference: that it was said, not by the Israelites, but by the Egyptians.”
“During the famine itself, the Egyptians say to Yosef, “Buy us and our land in exchange for food, and we, with our land, will be slaves to Pharaoh,” (Bereishit 47:19). Later, agreeing to a permanent arrangement whereby they would be Pharaoh’s servants, giving him a fifth of all they produce, they said “You have saved our lives. May we find favour in the eyes of our lord; we will be slaves to Pharaoh.”
Rabbi Sacks points out that Joseph could deserve some serious criticism for this exploitation of the population:
“This entire passage, which begins in our parsha and continues into next week’s, raises a most serious question. We tend to assume that the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt was a consequence of, and punishment for, the brothers selling Yosef as a slave. But Yosef himself turned the Egyptians into a nation of slaves. What is more, he created the highly centralised power that would eventually be used against his people.”
“Aaron Wildavsky in his book about Yosef, Assimilation versus Separation, says that Yosef “left the system into which he was elevated less humane than it was by making Pharaoh more powerful than he had been.” Leon Kass, in The Beginning of Wisdom, says about Yosef’s decision to make the people pay for food in the years of famine (food that they themselves had handed over during the years of plenty): “Yosef is saving life by making Pharaoh rich and, soon, all-powerful. While we may applaud Yosef’s forethought, we are rightly made uneasy by this man who profits from exercising his god-like power over life and death.”
“It may be that the Torah intends no criticism of Yosef whatsoever. He was acting loyally to Pharaoh and judiciously to Egypt as a whole. Or it may be that there is an implied criticism of his character. As a child, he dreamt of power; as an adult he exercised it; but Judaism is critical of power and those who seek it. Another possibility: the Torah is warning us of the hazards and ambiguities of politics. A policy that seems wise in one generation discloses itself as dangerous in the next. Or perhaps Leon Kass is right when he says, “Yosef’s sagacity is technical and managerial, not moral and political. He is long on forethought and planning but short on understanding the souls of men.”
And so the Torah teaches us about the perils of political power:
“What this entire passage represents is the first intrusion of politics into the life of the family of the covenant. From the beginning of Shemot to the end of Devarim, politics will dominate the narrative. But this is our first introduction to it: Yosef’s appointment to a key position in the Egyptian court. And what it is telling us is the sheer ambiguity of power. On the one hand, you cannot create or sustain a society without it. On the other hand, it almost cries out to be abused. Power is dangerous, even when used with the best of intentions by the best of people. Yosef acted to strengthen the hand of a Pharaoh who had been generous to him, and would be likewise to the rest of his family. He could not have foreseen what that same power might make possible in the hands of a “new Pharaoh who knew not Yosef.”
“Tradition called Yosef ha-tzaddik, the righteous. At the same time, the Talmud says that he died before his brothers, “because he assumed airs of authority.” Even a tzaddik with the best of intentions, when he or she enters politics and assumes airs of authority, can make mistakes. I believe the great challenge of politics is that politicians remain humble and policies are humane and so that power, always so dangerous, is not used for harm. That is an ongoing challenge, and tests even the best.”
I would add this: as Rabbi Sacks mentions, Joseph was known for his righteousness; yet even he succumbed to the evils of absolute power. None of the people with the WEF, Blackrock. Vanguard, and other global institutions are known for their moral stand – their advocacy for ESG and “climate change” notwithstanding. If it is hard to trust moral people with world-class power, it is impossible to trust people who don’t have a moral code.