Latest from UKIP Daily

The mind of a technocrat is rooted in the religion of scientism

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:

  1. 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. 
  2. The technocrat is skeptical and even hostile toward politicians and political institutions. 
  3. The technocrat is fundamentally unsympathetic to the openness and equality of political democracy. 
  4. The technocrat believes that social and political conflict is, at best misguided, and at worst, contrived
  5. The technocrat rejects ideological or moralistic criteria, preferring to debate policy in practical, “pragmatic terms.”
  6. 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.

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 changed: This is exactly what the UN’s Sustainable Development program seeks to do today.

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.

 

 

 

 

This article by Patrick Wood first appeared on Technocracy.news and is reproduced here with kind permission.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Patrick Wood (14 Articles)
Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy. He is the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton.

9 Comments on The mind of a technocrat is rooted in the religion of scientism

  1. Now I think I understand what Patrick is driving at. Tonight I watched a BBC2 programme I recorded from Sunday 6th August. It was SCARY, very chilling.
    The prog is called ‘The Disruptors: Secrets of Silicon Valley’, presented by Jamie Bartlett. He interviewed several rich techno whizz kids of varying degrees of insanity. These people want to change society (disrupt it) on a massive scale and substitute their own superior technocracy to create the future. They haven’t bothered to consult the ‘normals’ (‘normies’ for short – that’s you and me) because being so bloody arrogant about knowing how to create a ‘better world’ means they don’t care what anyone thinks, certainly not politicians elected to represent their countries and people.

    This is a two-part programme, so part 2 is probably on this coming Sunday. Notice how they love appearing alone on stage in a plain T-shirt in front of a packed audience a la Steve Jobs to proclaim their messianic message. It’s enough to make you want to join an ex-facebook guy in his teepee on some remote island. He’s got a gun.

  2. Patrick your article is so close to my understanding of what is going on in the world I could have written it myself! (Well almost. I couldn’t so I didn’t. LOL.)

    For one thing it explains global warming perfectly! It also explains the utter and otherwise unexplainable arrogance of those who, knowing next to nothing, would have us believe they know it all!

    Although I agree with almost everything said here I see scientism not as an end in itself but as a weapon that is used by politicians against us, especially those who are generally described as Marxists, Socialists, Globalists.

    However, point one contains the word ‘apolitical’. That is key. If we take Global Warming as an example here we see how this branch of scientism was used by Big Al and the Global Warming Gang to set up the biggest, most successful scam the world has ever seen. Because it is ‘apolitical’ it has been used with great success to destroy industries in the West and move them to competing nations like communist China without a single bomb being dropped. (Since when is a mechanism that is used to change public policy, which is the very essence of politics, ‘apolitical’? And yet somehow it is and has been successfully deployed throughout the Western World).

    But this is only one small aspect of it. Being ‘apolitical’ scientism has been used to wage psychological war against the very fabric of our society. It provides a cloak of respectability for those who would otherwise be branded traitors allowing them to operate openly across the political spectrum in all the mainstream parties. It allows teachers and professors to brainwash our young without let or hindrance and instil in them values that are anathema to us. It allows common sense to be called nonsense and stating the blindingly obvious to be branded hate speech. (The list goes on.)

    I have my own antidote to all of this. I trust in Jesus. Everyone else pays cash. (With apologies to Jean Shepherd.)

  3. P
    As a sort of scientist, I’m absolutely in agreement. Although, at punctuation I prefer a more relaxed attitude.
    Anyway, I’ve enjoyed trying to work out what the UN could be up to. Is it a ploy to destroy facts and rewrite history, or another bid for world government. again?

  4. Scientism sounds just as daft as Scientology, except you probably don’t have to pay a hefty wedge of dosh (double if you’re a celeb) to be audited by nosy know-it-alls trained to drain your brain and wallet.
    The founder of Scientology, L Ron Hubbard, was a conman, plain and simple. I wonder if he and M King Hubbard, follower of Saint-Simon, were related? [Men (usually Americans) who provide just an initial followed by a middle name and surname are very often charlatans. Although in Ron’s case, it could also be due to his forename being Lafayette.]

    This French geezer, Saint-Simon, was an outstanding twerp. Anyone can tell that from his ridiculous statement “Scientists are superior to all other men.” Could he provide scientific evidence for this claim?
    It’s astonishing how many gulls in the world are prepared to believe in self-declared emperors of intellect when it’s obvious that they have no clothes on and are parading about stark, b****** naked.

  5. CK
    I agree with all you say ,but add the following additional viewpoint.
    As someone who was running largish companies in the 60’s and 70’s I was intimately involved in exporting/trying to export to the common coal,iron and steel community (Rebuilt with reparation money and willing recipients of tech,method, expertise and other intellectual property ). I was forced at one stage to buy a boatload of steel from Japan. Brit Steel being monopolised by UK Labour party constructs like Brit. Motor Corporation etc ( Now of course defunct, with all the others, due to vindictive unions AS well as taxes.
    The main point is that the Eu.coal iron & steel thing was incredibly successful, as all customs unions are to start with. But the only way .to continue being successful is by expanding the number of countries, or by expanding control. Politicians then took credit and control and you have the EU
    The EU masters, and ours as well, are well aware of this and think an alternative to gaining new countries is immigration, and acted accordingly. POLITICAL SELF PRESERVATION. What stops this is GDPPC. GDP is false.
    This situation will fail eventually, but others , not willingly to wait, set up retaliatory structures. This often leads to war. Our forefathers, enormously cleverer than this lot, managed to promote free trade world wide. We’ve had this debate before.. I ‘m sorry if I’m boring. Discussion would be welcome , I may be wrong.

    • TG many thanks for your comment; you raise an interesting series of examples and I am sure you have a great deal more experience on these subjects than I have.
      I am confident we can see things through to a good end but it will be very stressful and dangerous at times. We are repeating the 17thC conflicts. Hopefully – no pleasure in predicting this – but Sweden is going to go bust and have severe civil unrest which will be a warning to the rest of Europe.
      Slowly the Cable Brown Corbyn generation is retiring and leaving the battlefield and there are enough bright new people to challenge the status quo.

  6. My problem is that once you have a science ( sic ) degree and a cv full of stuff , people think you know what you’re doing. This is palpably not true. By the end of para 4, I wasn’t just lost, I was ready for socialism. I certainly didn’t didn’t feel qualified to comment. So I have! Solely to give comfort to others similarly suffering.

    HOWEVER I,m inclined to agree with your summarising paragraphs. I just don’t know how you got there. But congratulations are in order.

  7. The optimum population of England (sic) is 25 million.
    Cultures and peoples in different parts of the world are at the present time incompatible and migration mixing will lead to severe social conflict if not civil wars.
    Ordinary working class people do not/are not benefiting from political constructs such as the EU. First there should have been a union of say Belgium with Luxemburg and Netherlands as an experiment. What would have happened would have been Wallonia seceding and joining France; and Luxemburg reverting to a backwater.
    All monetary unions without complete political union have failed.
    Science and Engineering have revolutionised the world giving us more prosperous lives and more health and welfare DESPITE THE POLITICIANS AND TECHNOCRATS.
    There is incipient stupidity and moral cowardice writ large in our political class ( the ostrich should be their symbol) bolstered by a gutless and sordid MSM. Every day most of the “news” reported is fake or doctored.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*