Scientism underlies both Technocracy and Transhumanism; the latter is to humanity as the former is to society. Without scientism, neither could be explained or justified. Scientism was first clearly defined by the French philosopher, Henri De Saint-Simon when he stated,
“A scientist, my dear friends, is a man who foresees; it is because science provides the means to predict that it is useful, and the scientists are superior to all other men.”
Saint-Simon is also considered the father of Technocracy that was later popularized and branded in the 1920s and 1930s by men such as Frederic Taylor, M. King Hubbard and Howard Scott.
It is a fatal error to equate Scientism with science. True science explores the natural world using the time-tested scientific method of repeated experimentation and validation. By comparison, Scientism is a speculative, metaphysical worldview about the nature and reality of the universe and man’s relation to it.
To a Technocrat, he or she is a hammer and every problem in the world is a nail. There is no problem in the universe that a Technocrat cannot solve, given enough time and resources. In the end, says the Technocrat, the solution will be the most efficient, balanced and reasoned solution possible, and there will be no dispute about it. In other words, the Technocrat’s solution always ends in the same position, that the “science is settled” and discussion is pointless. Dissenters are dismissed as ignorant, stupid and/or mean-spirited deniers.
Robert Putnam wrote in 1977 that there are six defining characteristics of a Technocrat:
- Above all, the technocrat believes that technics must replace politics and defines his own role in apolitical terms… he has great confidence in the possibility of solving the problems of society by a scientific approach.
- The technocrat is skeptical and even hostile toward politicians and political institutions.
- The technocrat is fundamentally unsympathetic to the openness and equality of political democracy.
- The technocrat believes that social and political conflict is, at best misguided, and at worst, contrived
- The technocrat rejects ideological or moralistic criteria, preferring to debate policy in practical, “pragmatic terms.”
- The technocrat is strongly committed to technological progress and material productivity: he is less concerned about distributive questions of social justice. (Putnam, 1977, “Elite Transformation in Advanced Industrial Societies”, Comparative Political Studies, 10, pp. 285-387)
Nothing has changed.[the_ad id=”11018″]
When the economic system called Technocracy was formulated in the 1930s, all of the above was focused on solving the Great Depression and the impending failure of Capitalism and Free Enterprise. Their solution was the first attempt in the history of the world to create an alternative economic model using the scientific approach. By 1938, the Technocrats defined their own movement as “the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.” (The Technocrat, 1939)
Now, that was very far-reaching. It sought to control the entire social mechanism (the problem) to make and distribute goods and services to the entire population (the needed solution).
Again, nothing has change: This is exactly what the UN’s Sustainable Development program seeks to do.
Saint-Simon proposed that the religious leadership of his day should be replaced by a priesthood of scientists and engineers, who would interpret the oracle of science in order to make declarations to society on necessary human action. Thus, science would be elevated to a state of unquestionable godhood, and would be worshiped by its followers as led by its priesthood. A modern type of such a high-priest would be Al Gore, who worships the god of “global warming science”.
The fifth column operating in the world today to subvert society is not comprised of socialists, communists or fascists, but is rather composed of Technocrats. The socialists, communists, fascists, and other political actors who inadvertently or purposefully help them are nothing more than ‘useful idiots’ who will suddenly, one day soon, be thrown under the bus and destroyed.
The ‘useful idiot’ observation is not speculative. Every revolution in history had sympathizers and operatives who met the same fate.