by Iain Davis
Both Taylor and Veblan were focused upon improving the efficiency of industrial and manufacturing processes. However, they also recognised that their theories could be extended to the wider social context. It was the more expansive application of their ideas that beguiled the parasite class.
Veblan famously spoke about "conspicuous consumption" to describe how the affluent displayed their social standing through their ability to engage in pursuits and buy items that were essentially purposeless and wasteful. This conspicuous leisure and consumption cascaded down through the class structure, as those aspiring to signal their own status emulated the wealthy.
He argued that this was a major contributory factor toward unacceptable resource waste and inefficiency. Consumer society ultimately produced more goods and services than it needed simply to meet the artificial demand created for, in his view, avoidable and unnecessary social demand.
Veblan was strongly opposed to this inefficient use of resources which he blamed on the "business classes" and financiers. He valued their contribution to the industrial age but felt they were no longer capable of managing modern industrial society.
Initially Veblan argued that the workers must therefore be the architects of the necessary social change that would create economic and industrial reform. However, in the Engineers and the Price System [4] he shifted his focus away from workers as the drivers of change towards technocratic engineers.
He called for a thorough analysis of the institutions which maintained social stability. Once understood, those with technological expertise should reform the institutions and thereby engineer society and improve efficiency. Veblan referred to these social change agents as a "soviet of technicians."
In 1919 Veblan was among the founders of the John D. Rockefeller funded private research university in New York called the New School for Social Research. This soon led to the creation of the Technical Alliance [5] as Veblan joined a small team of scientists and engineers, notably Howard Scott, to form a fledgling technocratic organisation.
Scott didn't like Veblan's description of a soviet of technicians, reportedly calling it [6] a "cockeyed thing." The clear association with communism probably wasn't welcome from a PR perspective and Scott felt it undermined what he was trying to achieve with technocracy.
Veblan's involvement with the Technical Alliance was relatively brief and some have suggested that his contribution to technocracy was minimal, accrediting Scott as the great mind behind it. Regardless of the extent of Veblan's personal involvement in the movement, his socioeconomic theories permeate technocracy.
In 1933 the Technical Alliance reformed after an enforced hiatus prompted by Scott's exposure as a fraudster (he falsified his engineering credentials). They renamed themselves Technocracy inc.
Despite his public humiliation, Scott was a skilled orator and remained the spokesman for Technocracy inc. He worked with, among others, M. King Hubbert. Hubbert would later become globally renowned for his vague and generally inaccurate [7] "peak oil" theory.
Scott and Hubbert collaborated to write Technocracy Inc's study course [8] to formerly introduce the world to technocracy. The logo selected for Technocracy inc. looks like a red and white "yin and yang" symbol. This represents the Great Chinese Monad or the Diagram of the Great Extreme. On their website [9] Technocracy inc. say that it symbolises the balance between production and consumption or the balance between humans and the environment. They claim:
"Technocracy was the first organization to begin talking about sustainability before the terms sustainability or 'going green' were even coined."
Given that the Study Course was written in 1934, Diagram of the Great Extreme seems the most appropriate symbolic reference. At the time, the proposed technocracy was technologically impossible and sounded pretty crazy. However, we are certainly more familiar with these ideas today. Hubbert wrote:
"Technocracy finds that the production and distribution of an abundance of physical wealth on a Continental scale for the use of all Continental citizens can only be accomplished by a Continental technological control, a governance of function, a Technate."
The Technate, a technocratic society initially envisaged to encompass the North American continent, would be administered by a central planning body formed of scientists, engineers and other suitably qualified technocrats. Technocracy would require a new monetary system based upon a calculation of the Technate's total energy usage. People would be allocated an equal share of the corresponding energy certificates (as a form of currency) denominated in units of energy (Joules.)
A new price system was envisaged with all commodities and goods priced according to the energy cost of their production. A cabbage might be 20 Joules or a refrigerator 50,000 Joules. Purchases using energy certificates would then be reported back to the appropriate department of the technocratic central planning committee. The transaction would be catalogued and analysed, enabling the central planners to precisely calculate the rolling energy balance, between energy production and consumption, for the entire Technate.
In order for this system to work, all consumer's energy expenditure (including all daily transactions using energy certificates) would need to be recorded in real time; the national inventory of net energy production and consumption would have to be constantly updated, around the clock; a registry of every commodity and product needed to be scrupulously maintained, with every individual living in the Technate allocated a personal energy account. This would be updated to record their energy usage and personal net energy balance.
Hubbert & Scott made it clear that, for technocracy to work, an all pervasive energy surveillance grid would be required. All citizens would be individually identified on the grid and every aspect of their daily lives monitored and controlled by the technocratic central planners.
Technocracy is a totalitarian form of surveillance based, centralised authoritarian governance which abolishes national sovereignty and political parties. Freedoms and rights are replaced with a duty to behave in the interest of a common good, as defined by the technocrats, in pursuit of equality. All decisions about production, allocation of resources, all technological innovation and economic activity is controlled by a technocracy of experts (Veblan's soviet of technicians.)
In Technocrat Magazine in 1938 technocracy was described 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.”
For the parasite class and their GPPP stakeholder partners it was an irresistible idea. In order to control everything all they would need to do is whisper in the ear of a few hand-picked technocrats. While in the 1930's the Technate was an impracticable proposition, it was still something to inspire them and work towards.
Understanding that technological development would eventually enable the Technate to be realised, in 1970 Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski (1928 - 2017) wrote Between Two Ages: America’s Role In The Technetronic Era [10]. At the time he was a professor of political science at Columbia university where Scott had first met Hubbert in 1932. He had already been an advisor to both the Kennedy and Johnson campaigns and would later become National Security Advisor to US President Jimmy Carter (1977 - 1981).
Brzezinski was a significant influence on late 20th Century US foreign policy, far beyond his years in the Carter administration. The Democrat counterpart to Republican Henry Kissinger, he was a centrist and his deep dislike of the Soviet Union often placed him on the right of Kissinger on related issues. He supported the Vietnam War and was instrumental in Operation Cyclone which saw the US arm, train and equip Islamist extremists in Afghanistan [11].
He was a member of numerous policy think tanks including the Council on Foreign Relations, The Center For Strategic & International Studies, Le Cercle and was a regular attendee at the annual parasite class soiree the Bilderberg conference [12]. In 1973 he and David Rockefeller formed the Trilateral Commission policy think tank. Brzez
inski was very much part of the Deep State milieu and the GPPP.
Between Two Ages is a geopolitical analysis and set of policy recommendations born from Brzezinski's view that digital technology would transform society, culture, politics and the global balance of political power. It also provides us with a clear view of the mindset of the parasite class. It should be acknowledged that Between Two Ages is another among the many publications written by people with the economic and political authority to "influence the lives of millions across borders on a regular basis."
Brzezinski didn't reference technocracy directly, perhaps wary of its rather sketchy reputation following Scott's disgrace. However, he did describe it in detail throughout the book:
"Technological adaptation would involve the transformation of the bureaucratic dogmatic party into a party of technocrats. Primary emphasis would be on scientific expertise, efficiency, and discipline... the party would be composed of scientific experts, trained in the latest techniques, capable of relying on cybernetics and computers for social control."
He theorised about, what he called, the Technetronic Age and offered a vision of the near future, from the perspective of the 1970's. Brzezinski predicted that this Age would arise as a result of the Technetronic Revolution. This would be the third revolution to follow the industrial revolution. Klaus Schwab would later call this the 4th Industrial Revolution.
Brzezinski wrote:
"The post industrial society is becoming a 'technetronic' society: a society that is shaped culturally, psychologically, socially, and economically by the impact of technology and electronics—particularly in the area of computers and communications."
He then went on to describe what he thought life in the Technetronic Age would be like for ordinary men, women and their families. He envisaged that our lives would be controlled by computer technology and led by science:
"Both the growing capacity for the instant calculation of the most complex interactions and the increasing availability of biochemical means of human control augment the potential scope of consciously chosen direction.. Masses are organized in the industrial society by trade unions and political parties and unified by relatively simple and somewhat ideological programs.. In the technetronic society the trend seems to be toward aggregating the individual support of millions of unorganized citizens, who are easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities, and effectively exploiting the latest communication techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason."
Brzezinski foresaw that the Technate's need for a system capable of instant calculations would be met, thus enabling the required 24/7 monitoring and control of the most complex interactions. He noted how the political leaders of industrial societies used simple ideological programs to organise the masses but how, in the future, communication technology would enable personalities to be used to manipulate emotions and control reason.
He also explained how technology would enable extensive behaviour modification and manipulation of the population. He foresaw (suggested) how this could be weaponised:
"It may be possible—and tempting—to exploit for strategic political purposes the fruits of research on the brain and on human behavior.. one could develop a system that would seriously impair the brain performance of very large populations in selected regions over an extended period."
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote enthusiastically, through a paper thin veil of cautionary predictions, about how a global scientific elite (the soviet of technicians described by Veblan) could not only use extreme, all-pervasive propaganda, economic and political manipulation to determine the direction of society but could also exploit technology and behavioural science to genetically alter and brainwash the population. Describing the form of this society and the potential for technocratic control he wrote:
"Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know how. 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."
He claimed the technetronic age he described was inevitable. Therefore he asserted that the future of the United States (and the planet) must be centrally planned. These planners would eventually displace "the lawyer as the key social legislator and manipulator." Consequently, he decided there was an urgent need to develop this network of planners by fusing government with academia and private corporations.
He stated that political parties would become increasingly irrelevant, replaced by regional structures pursuing "urban, professional, and other interests." These could be used to "provide the focus for political action." He understood the potential for this localised, technocratic administrative system:
"In the technetronic age the greater availability of means permits the definition of more attainable ends, thus making for a less doctrinaire and a more effective relationship between 'what is' and 'what ought to be.’"
He also suggested a redefinition of freedom. Liberty would be achieved through centrally planned public commitment to social and economic equality, administered and overseen by technocrats:
"The positive potential of the third American revolution lies in its promise to link liberty with equality."
Brzezinski recognised that it would be impossible to impose world government directly. Rather it should be gradually constructed through a system of global governance comprised of treaties, bilateral agreements and intergovernmental organisations:
"Though the objective of shaping a community of the developed nations is less ambitious than the goal of world government, it is more attainable.....it attempts to create a new framework for international affairs not by exploiting these divisions but rather by striving to preserve and create openings for reconciliation."
One opening that he was particularly interested in was China. Tensions between Russia and China had continued to rumble on and, as Brzezinski wrote Between Two Ages, they had spilled over into a border conflict [13]. He saw that the Sino-Soviet split had created an opportunity to shape China's modernisation:
"In China the Sino Soviet conflict has already accelerated the inescapable Sinification of Chinese communism. That conflict shattered the revolution's universal perspective and—perhaps even more important— detached Chinese modernization from its commitment to the Soviet model. Hence, whatever happens in the short run, in years to come Chinese development will probably increasingly share the experience of other nations in the process of modernization. This may both dilute the regime's ideological tenacity and lead to more eclectic experimentation in shaping the Chinese road to modernity."
These ideas were firmly in Brzezinski's mind when he and committed eugenicist David Rockefeller, whose family had been bankrolling technocratic initiatives for more than 50 years, first convened the Trilateral Commission [14]. They were eventually joined by other so called thought leaders like population control expert Henry Kissinger, Club of Rome environmentalist Gro Harlem Brundtland and the president of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haass, who more recently wrote World Order 2.0 [15].
Like all globalist think tanks, the Trilateral Commission claim that they don't really have any power and are just a talking shop for the most powerful people on Earth to kick around a few ideas and enjoy a chat. They say they come up with the odd policy initiative but can't do anything to make governments adopt them.
This is the line the official "debunkers" [16] would have you believe. They accuse all who point out that governments commonly adopt policies that originate in the globalist think tanks of being "conspiracy theorists." Accordingly, they encourage the blank dismissal of evidence, purely by slapping the "conspiracy theorist" label on the people trying to share it.
Presumably, acknowledged political heavyweights like Kissinger and Brzezinski, and financial behemoths like the Rockefellers and George Soros [17] put their secr
etive discussion out of their minds entirely as they set about controlling policy and global development. At least, that is what we are expected to believe.
Anyone who seriously claims that policy think tanks don't create policy are either peddling dezinformatsiya or don't understand what they are talking about. The representative governments we elect aren't in charge. This is the nature of realpolitik and we just need to grasp that fact. As Philip K. Dick observed:
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away."
We allow this kind of opaque gathering of leaders to rule over us, primarily through our apathy, our belief in authority and stubborn refusal to confront reality. Collectively they form something often referred to as the Deep State Milieu [18].
Humbling as it may be, the uncomfortable truth is that we are viewed as nothing more than expendable pawns in a great game played out by avaricious tyrants who see genocide as a tactic. Among the worst of them was Mao Zedong whose "great leap forward" saw 40 million people brutalised and starved to death in just three horrific years (1959 - 1961).
Apologists claim this was all a terrible mistake but it was nothing of the kind. In the certain knowledge that food supplies were running out, in 1958 Mao said "to distribute resources evenly will only ruin the Great Leap Forward" and later the same year:
"When there is not enough to eat, people starve to death. It is better to let half the people die so that others can eat their fill."
In his zeal to create a communist utopia [19], Mao presided over a system that seized food from starving millions and exported it to fund his political reforms and determination to rapidly industrialise the economy. It wasn't an error or an unfortunate oversight. While many were so terrified that they submitted fake reports of surpluses that didn't exist, it is clear that the leadership of the People's Republic of China (PRC) knew exactly what the human costs were. They just didn't care.