There's a manufacturing revolution just around the corner that may make all the current debate about NAFTA, GATT, free trade, China, and even central banking as obsolete as the dodo bird, and in case you haven't heard of it, it's called "three-d" or "three dimensional printing":

Guest Post: The Next Industrial Revolution

Here's the meat of that article:

"3D printers — machines that can assemble molecules into larger pre-designed objects are pioneering a whole new way of making things. This could well rewrite the rules of manufacturing in much the same way as the rise of personal computing discombobulated the traditional world of computing.

"3D printers have existed in large-scale industry for years. But at a cost of $100,000 to $1m, few individuals could ever afford one. Fortunately, improved technology and lowered costs are making such machines more viable for home use. Industrial 3D printers now cost from just $15,000, and home versions for little more than $1,000. Obviously, there are still significant hurdles. 3D printing is still a relatively crude technology, so far incapable of producing complex finished goods. And molecular assembly still requires resources to run on — at least until the technology of molecular disassembly becomes viable, allowing for 3D printers to run on, for example, waste. But the potential for more and more individuals to gain the capacity to manufacture at home — thereby reducing dependency on oil and the global trade grid — is a huge incentive to further development. The next Apple or Microsoft could well be the company that develops and brings home-based 3D printing to the wider marketplace by making it simple and accessible and cheap.

"Decentralised manufacturing goes hand-in-hand with decentralised energy generation, because manufacturing requires energy input. Microgrids are localised groupings of energy generation that can vary from city-size to individual-size. The latter is gradually becoming more and more economically viable as the costs of solar panels, wind turbines (etc) for energy generation, and lithium and graphene batteries (etc) for home energy storage fall, and efficiencies rise. Although generally connected to a larger national electricity grid, the connection can be disconnected, and a microgrid can function autonomously if the national grid were to fail (for example) as a result of natural disaster or war."

True enough, 3D printers already exist, and 3D printers are, as the article notes above, very expensive. But at one time, so were computers. I remember as a boy a large local bank in Sioux Falls was one of the few corporations in that part of the country that even had a computer. It made the local and regional news. And it was expensive too: several millions of dollars, and it filled a floor of the bank building. Now I am typing this blog on a computer magnitudes of order smaller, magnitudes of order cheaper, and magnitudes of order more powerful, than the clunky Sperry computer (I think it was Sperry) at the local bank.

Eventually, in other words, 3D printers will become smaller, cheaper, and in the process, manufacturing will be greatly localized and personalized. The transformation, I submit, will be much more than the general decentralization of energy that it will promote, it will also promote a return to a system of finance that is productivity-and-equity based and not the centralized debt-driven speculative monster we see now, and with that decentralization will come another: the potential rise of competing currencies, and an end to the central bank money monopoly.

They will, of course, try to determine this development by their usual mercantilist policies and outdated playbook, but the sheer numbers of manufacturing "centers" that such a technology will make possible will, in my opinion, spell an end to the centralized mercantilism we see now. If they attempt to pass laws forbidding the emergence of competition to their money and force monopoly, that too will fail, for it will simply drive such activity underground.Localities and regions will be able to issue currency based on local arrangements and productivity.

And of course, all the while, they will attempt to buy up as many of the corporations involved with such technology for themselves, the old adage "ownership is less important that controlling interest" being the oldest part of the playbook. But "controlling interest" is now being challenged from a completely different sector: technological development and decentralization. for it: the usual central bankster nonsense will start soon: they will begin to put out their "position papers" from their think tanks and foundations and study groups, and these will call for "regulation" of the emerging technology and potential markets, they will have their compliant media running "warm up" and "get ready for" articles. For it is surely coming, and they know what the implications - a potential loss of their money monopoly - are.

See you on the flip side.

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. zeropoint on October 4, 2012 at 10:50 am

    Maybe Iapetus, and similar, were 3D-printed by the EMVs orbiting Saturn.

  2. Robert Barricklow on October 3, 2012 at 9:10 am

    Monopoly is their game.
    They are even doing it, as I write this, with internet poker.
    Many players predicted their moves. It is happening now.
    There is No industry they will not absolutely Control. Of course, the mother of all of them, is the issueing of their monopolized currency.
    And the abiotic oil & food industry are not far behind.

  3. Meme Master on October 3, 2012 at 8:48 am

    “they’d be dangerous in the hands of a terrorist! And what if a young child put his or her younger sibling in the machine and a house fly actually got in the machine as well? That would be nightmarish! The machine could create monsters.”


  4. Yaj on October 3, 2012 at 6:21 am

    The machines may be less expensive now, though one has been able to buy one for about $25,000 for ten years.

    However: The materials “printed” are still very limited. It’s mostly one type of plastic, with machines that print metal still costing $800,000.

    None of these machines combine the 3D printing of metals and plastics, so being able to printout say a sell phone is still many years away. And even when that is feasible, the software to control such processes is likely to remain expensive, difficult to learn, and time consuming to use. Good CAD software today, 2012, is between a few thousand dollars and twenty. And it is far from easy to simply draft up a new jet engine with such software.

    So: Yes, printing out a computer with another computer may become possible, but we’re years away, and even in that future you’ll still have to pay for the good designs and the software to execute them.

    Another problem right how with the machines is that none of them can do fine finish work—ie no smooth surfaces. Yes, surfaces can be machined smooth later with other tools but not if they are complex internal twists and turns.

    Right now that last is a great strength of this technology: It can do complex, organic, internal twists and turns that nothing else can.

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events