|
SUPPORT
US |
|
|
|
TOPICAL INDEX |
|
The Babylon Observer places his observations and
research material under the following main
topics.
Click the pictures to find out more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
babylonobserver.dubroom.org |
|
|
|
Neoconservativism:
The Cult of Techno-socialism |
Neoconflict:
Who is the Enemy?
The actions taken by the Bush Administration
in the aftermath of 9-11 have caused
muckrakers from across the political
spectrum to take a closer look at the hidden
hand guiding the current President.
Researchers, both left and right, have
identified the same enemy: a faction of the
elite known as neoconservatives. The
exposure has led to mounting opposition
against the neoconservative agenda from
numerous grassroots activists.
Now, several
neoconservatives are launching a
counterattack.
The strategy is one of vilification. In an
article for National Review, Michael Rubin
characterized the neocons' opponents as
anti-Semites obsessed with conspiracy
theories (Rubin). Max Boot continued with
the "conspiracy theory" angle,
claiming that the neocons' opponents have
overactive imaginations:
“A cabal of neoconservatives has hijacked
the Bush administration's foreign policy and
transformed the world's sole superpower into
a unilateral monster. Say what? In truth,
stories about the 'neocon' ascendancy-and
the group's insidious intent to wage
preemptive wars across the globe-have been
much exaggerated. And by telling such tall
tales, critics have twisted the neocons'
identities and thinking on U.S. foreign
policy into an unrecognizable caricature.”
(Boot)
Why have the neocons' retaliation been so
aggressive? Do they simply wish to "set
the record straight"? Are Rubin and
Boot merely trying to correct several
misconceptions over neoconservatism? The
tone of their rhetoric and apologetics
suggest another motivation: obfuscation. The
neocons realize that continued exposure will
eventually lead to the destruction of even
the most well constructed disguise. One
individual who realizes that the neocons
have camouflaged their real intentions is
Pulitzer Prize winning author Seymour Hersh.
Hersh characterized the neocons in the
following way: "...one of the things
that you could say is, the amazing thing is
we are been taken over basically by a cult,
eight or nine neo-conservatives have somehow
grabbed the government" (Hersh). Cults
are usually very adept at the concealment
game. Many times the masquerade is so
effective that a group's own members do not
even realize they are part of a cult. What
lies at the center of the cult of
Neoconservatism?
The Neoconservative cult has always paraded
around under a patriotic, pro-American,
anticommunist facade. What lies behind this
veneer? Frank Fischer answers this question
in his book Technocracy and the Politics of
Expertise: "...neoconservativism is at
base an elitist ideology aimed at promoting
a new group of conservative
technocrats." (172)
What is a "technocrat?" A
technocratic society, or Technocracy, can be
defined as follows:
“Technocracy, in classical political
terms, refers to a system of governance in
which technically trained experts rule by
virtue of their specialized knowledge and
position in dominant political and economic
institutions.” (Fischer 17)
Professor Carroll Quigley also wrote about a
dictatorship of "experts,"
suggesting that a cognitive elite "will
replace the democratic voter in control of
the political system" (Quigley 866). Of
just such a democracy of
"experts," Freemason and Fabian
socialist H.G. Wells stated:
“The world's political organization will
be democratic, that is to say, the
government and direction of affairs will be
in immediate touch with and responsive to
the general thought of the educated whole
population.” (The Open Conspiracy: H.G.
Wells on World Revolution, 26)
Literary critic and author W. Warren Wagar
comments on this statement:
“Read carefully. He did not say the world
government would be elected by the people,
or that it would even be responsive to the
people just to those who were
‘educated.’” (Wells, The Open
Conspiracy: H.G. Wells on World Revolution,
26)
Wells would elaborate on the concept of
Technocracy in his novel entitled The Shape
of Things to Come. Disguised as
"science fiction," Wells' roman a'
clef propagandized the masses on behalf of
world government. In its pages, one finds an
elucidating portrait of the technocratic
tradition that spawned neoconservativism.
The Technocratic Roots of Neoconservatism
In The Shape of Things to Come, Wells calls
Technocracy an "expressive and
significant word." In The Technocrats:
Prophets of Automation, Henry Elsner states
that Technocracy became the "new word
of 1932" (1). With the Depression
sinking to its nadir, the technocratic
Weltanschauung "exploded into public
attention" and "marked the
conversation of millions of Americans"
(1). The epidemic scope of this ideational
contagion is made evident by the prolific
media exposure that it enjoyed:
“In the closing months of 1932, as the
Depression deepened and national politics
seemed to be drifting helplessly,
speculations about Technocracy swept across
the country in almost every available form.
The high point was reached in January, 1933.
The New York Times alone had no less than
sixty articles on Technocracy that month.
Forty-one periodical articles and seventeen
books and pamphlets on Technocracy were
included in the standard indexes for the
beginning of 1933.”(7)
In The Shape of Things to Come, Wells
succinctly characterizes this phase of
popularity as an "outbreak."
Indeed, the 30s witnessed the rampant
metastasis of technocratic thought.
Elaborating on the epidemic of Technocracy,
Wells writes:
“Everywhere in that decadence, amidst that
twilight of social order, engineers,
industrialists and professors of physical
science were writing and talking
constructive policies. They were invading
politics.”
Wells characterizes the men who would
comprise the technocratic movement as
follows:
“Now the skilled and directive men of the
collapsing order of the twentieth century
were of an altogether livelier quality.
Their training was not traditional but
progressive, far more progressive than that
of any other class. They were inured to
fundamental changes in scope, method and
material. They ceased to be acquiescent in
the political and financial life about them
directly they found their activities
seriously impeded.” (The Shape of Things
to Come)
Wells proceeds to reveal a Fabian strategy
of gradual ideological assimilation:
"The movement spread from workshop to
workshop and from laboratory to laboratory
with increasing rapidity all over the
world" (The Shape of Things to Come).
Indeed, Technocracy did spread. James Dowell
Crabtree expands on the pandemic breadth of
this ideational contagion:
“Technocracy has spread from America to
other parts of the world. In many recent
articles, the People's Republic of China's
new generation of leaders have been called
'technocrats,' as were some leaders in the
former Soviet Union.” (148)
In fact, technocratic concepts have pervaded
the very fabric of socialist totalitarian
regimes throughout history. Author Frank
Fischer elaborates:
“In practice, the technocratic concept of
the administrative state has been most
influential in the socialist world of
planned economies. Given their emphasis on
comprehensive economic and social planning,
the technocratic theory is ready-made both
to guide and to legitimate the centralized
bureaucratic decision-making systems that
direct most socialist regimes. Easily
aligned with the ideas and techniques of
scientific planning, particularly those
shaped by Marxist economists, technocratic
concepts have played an important role in
the evolution of socialist theory and
practice.” (25)
It comes as little surprise that the
technocratic movement would initially pledge
its support to Franklin D. Roosevelt's
overtly Marxist New Deal. Indeed, many
adherents of Technocracy believed FDR's
policies for economic recovery would
facilitate the nation's final metamorphosis
into a Technocracy. In the early days of the
1932 election, economist Henry A. Porter
published Roosevelt and Technocracy. The
book concerned itself with a pivotal
question: "Will TECHNOCRACY be the 'New
Deal?'" (45). Based on his examination
of New Deal policies, Porter gravitated
towards the affirmative.
In fact, Porter voiced his resounding
approval of FDR and other closely aligned
New Deal liberals:
“Only skillful statesmanship--the
statesmanship of a Roosevelt, and sound
economic principles — the principles of
Technocracy, can lead us out of the valley
of Chaos and Despair into which we are
plunging.” (71)
There was good reason for the technocratic
movement's initial support of Roosevelt. The
socialist founder of the Nationalist
movement, Edward Bellamy, heavily influenced
FDR. Bellamy authored Looking Backward,
2000-1887, another piece of sci-fi
predictive programming literature that
proselytized readers on behalf of global
socialism. James Crabtree synopsizes the
book as follows:
“Inadvertently, Edward Bellamy and his
Looking Backward, 2000-1887 tapped into the
latent American faith in technology as the
solution to humanity's every problem.
Looking Backward is a science fiction novel,
telling the story of a man from 1887 thrust
into the future and learning of all the
changes that had taken place in America
during the intervening century. In the year
2000 all wants are met. Society has
eliminated non-progressive institutions that
were corrupt in the 1880s and replaced them
with a government-run industrial state. In
Looking Backward everyone could retire at
the age of 45 after a life of serving in a
job for which he or she was best suited.
Bellamy's future was indeed Utopian. Bellamy
characterized society as machine. Whereas in
1887 it was a machine badly managed and
inefficient, in the year 2000 society was
well run. His 'everyman' character, Julian
West, found himself in a future where the
'regime of the great consolidations of
capital' had been overthrown and the
'concentration of management and unity of
organization' had taken control. Whether he
meant to or not, Bellamy had defined the
managerial concept of society. What is more
important, he gave many people an ideal of
an industrial, or technological, state
towards which to strive. (7-8) ”
Looking Backward would later become
"officially recommended reading for
members of the Technocratic movement"
(Crabtree 8). In fact, the Nationalist
movement that sprouted from Bellamy's sci-fi
predictive programming could be considered
"a precursor to the Technocrats, and
its members 'pre-Technocrats'"
(Crabtree 8). Henry Elsner delineates the
various commonalities shared by the
technocratic movement and Bellamy's
Nationalist movement:
“Despite differences in detail, a number
of the basic principles of organization are
remarkably similar in Bellamy's and in
technocratic. (1) The organization of all
industries into a few large-scale, publicly
owned units, administered by technical
experts who are selected from within the
ranks of the units concerned. (2) A
bureaucratic rather than an
industrial-democratic organization of the
workplace. (3) Equal, independent income
issued to all members of society as a right
of citizenship. (4) Income distribution
through a nonmonetary accounting system
wherein the registration of items purchased
serves as an automatic means of estimating
future production requirements. (5) The
elimination of a political government, i.e.,
officials other than those at the heads of
the productive, distributive, and
professional units, and the abolition of
political parties. (221)”
Yet, Elsner correctly identifies various
differences between Bellamyism and
Technocracy (223). These dissimilarities
suggest that Bellamyism acted as a
conceptual segue, "a transition between
an older, essentially pre-industrial
'utopian' societal socialism, and
technocracy" (223). Indeed, Technocracy
did appear on the horizon and would give way
to the New Deal. Shortly after being sworn
into office, Roosevelt outlined his plan for
economic and social recovery in the book
Looking Forward (Crabtree 105-06). The title
itself seemed to be an allusion to
Bellamyism:
“By picking 'Looking Forward' for the
title, Roosevelt almost certainly thought to
follow in Bellamy's footsteps and produce
his own version of Looking Backward that
would serve as a model for future
society.” (Crabtree 106)
In Looking Forward, Roosevelt wrote: "A
greater efficiency [in government] than we
have heretofore seen is urgent" (71).
Within this statement, one immediately
discerns the technocratic preoccupation with
governmental efficiency. This preoccupation
is probably attributable to the mutual
doctrinal foundation of both Technocracy and
New Deal liberalism: Progressivism. In
particular, the ideational strand of
Bellamyism is evident.
The precursory technocratic concepts of
Bellamy found some fragmentary expression
through the policies of the New Deal. One
manifestation of Bellamyism was the Social
Security Act, which was inspired by a
retired physician named Dr. Francis Townsend
(Crabtree 105). Townsend's concepts were
cribbed from Bellamy's Looking Backward
(Crabtree 104). Among one of his theoretical
policies was a federal program that would
have allocated $200 a month to unemployed
citizens over the age of sixty (Crabtree
104). According to Townsend's conjectural
program, the recipients of this financial
assistance would have thirty days within
which they would be required to spend the
$200 (Crabtree 104).
While the Townsend Bill did not enjoy
passage by Congress, it did inspire the
Social Security Act that was successfully
signed into law later (Crabtree 105).
Diffuse in its transmission, technocratic
thought remained at the root of this New
Deal machination. Crabtree explains:
“In this way, one might say that the
Technocrats did indeed have an indirect
influence on the New Deal, by way of one of
the contributors to their doctrine (Bellamy)
to an activist who espoused their ideas of
guaranteed income (Townsend) and finally
into law.” (105)
In addition to this program of
"guaranteed income," FDR's
administration would introduce a plethora of
government agencies. These would included
the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the
Public Works Administration (PWA), the
Agricultural Adjustment Administration
(AAA), and, most notably, the National
Recovery Administration (NRA) (Crabtree
106). What was initially a small federal
government was soon transformed into a
massive bureaucracy. In some ways, this new
"[c]entralized and functional"
monolith was similar to the continental
administration promoted by Technocracy Inc.
(Crabtree 106). Moreover, its impact upon
America's Federal government would leave a
"permanent mark" (Crabtree 106).
Big government was born and Technocracy's
rise in the West had begun in earnest.
Historically, FDR's overtly socialistic
policies clashed with the anti-statist
sentiments of many Americans. Yet,
neoconservatives, who have been consistently
characterized as "anticommunist"
and "pro-American," supported the
New Deal. Irving Kristol, the
"godfather of neoconservatism,"
states in his book Neoconservatism: The
Autobiography of an Idea that neocons:
"...accepted the New Deal in
principle..." (x). Later in his book,
Kristol writes:
“In a way, the symbol of the influence of
neoconservative thinking on the Republican
party was the fact that Ronald Reagan could
praise Franklin D. Roosevelt as a great
American president-praise echoed by Newt
Gingrich a dozen years later, when it is no
longer so surprising.” (379)
Why were neoconservatives so amicable
towards the socialism of the New Deal? The
answer is because Roosevelt's Marxist
proclivities harmonized with the
neoconservative variety of Technocracy. It
is interesting to note that
"godfather" Kristol was a
Trotskyist in his youth. Kristol makes it
clear that he is unrepentant: "I regard
myself lucky to have been a young Trotskyist
and I have not a single bitter memory"
(13). The statist tradition found in Marxism
is also carried on by the neocons. This is
another point made clear by Kristol:
"Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm
or anxiety about the growth of the state in
the past century, seeing it as natural,
indeed inevitable" ("The
Neoconservative Persuasion").
Marxist economic theory remains firmly
embedded within neoconservative ideology.
Several neoconservative ideologues have
espoused socialist ideas. Arch-neocon
William F. Buckley has written: "
Congress shall appropriate funds for social
welfare only for the benefit of those states
whose per capita income is below the
national average" (qutd. in Epperson
49). Commenting on Buckley's statement,
researcher Ralph Epperson writes:
“This writer [Buckley] advocated a newer
brand of Marxism: "From each state
according to its ability, to each state
according to its needs" (emphasis
added). This writer advocated that the
national government divide the wealth,
taking it from the wealthier states and
giving it to the less productive. Pure
Marxism, except the writer involved both the
state and the federal governments rather
than just the federal government as Marx
envisioned. This is only expanding Marx one
step: the result is the same. Property is
distributed by the government just as
before. The shock is that this new thought
came from the pen of William F. Buckley,
Jr., hardly a paragon of Marxism. But notice
that Buckley's intent is the same as that of
Marx: to use government to redistribute
Consumption and Capital Goods. (Epperson
49)”
No doubt, these Marxist proclivities were a
consequence of neoconservativism's
technocratic heritage. Of course, there are
those who would argue that the technocratic
tradition has been at variance with Marxism.
Indeed, technocratic and Marxist
theoreticians have feuded on occasion. Yet,
the common thread of state socialism binds
both, as is evidenced by their closely
aligned economic policies and virtually
identical outcomes. The petty differences
between theoreticians become
inconsequential. Technocracy was a logical
outgrowth of earlier variants of socialism.
The ideational continuum appears to have
been a drift from Bellamyism to Technocracy
to New Deal socialism. Neoconservativism is
the latest segment in this larger continuity
of thought.
From Technocratic to Technetronic
Since the 1970s, the next developmental
stage of Technocracy "has been both
theorized and hailed under the banner of
'postindustrialism'" (101). Examining
this shift in technocratic thinking, Fischer
states: "contemporary technocratic
theories are now theories of postindustrial
society" (101). Yet, some technocratic
ideologues regard
"postindustrialism" and
"postindustrial society" as
potentially misunderstood or derisive
characterizations. One such ideologue is
Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national
security advisor to President Carter and the
chief inspiration for the geostrategy being
currently implemented by the neocons.
Eschewing the "postindustrial"
portraits of Technocracy, Brzezinski fancies
the euphemism of "technetronic"
society (101).
Brzezinski's "technetronic" model
is no less elitist or anti-democratic than
its theoretical progenitors. According to
Brzezinski, this new stage in Technocracy's
evolution will witness the ascendance of a
"scientific/technical elite" that
would seize control of the "essential
flow of information and production"
(Fischer 103). This epistemological cartel
would subsequently direct its consolidations
of knowledge toward the scientific
subjugation of the masses. Fischer
elaborates:
“Increasingly, scientific knowledge will
be used directly to plan almost every aspect
of economic and social life. In the process,
Brzezinski avers, class conflict will assume
new forms and modes: Knowledge and culture
will replace material needs in the struggle
between the scientific/technical elite and
the masses of people who will have to be
integrated into and subordinated in the
postindustrial system.” (103)
Although accurate, Fischer's synopsis of
Brzezinski's vision is stated in somewhat
euphemistic terms. Yet, Brzezinski's own
portrait is far more authoritarian in
character. In Between Two Ages: America's
Role in the Technetronic Era, Brzezinski
more vividly describes the "gradual
appearance of a more controlled and directed
society" (252). With painful candor,
the former national security advisor
proceeds to paint his technocratic picture
for the future:
“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 the latest modern techniques for
influencing public behavior and keeping
society under close surveillance and
control.” (252)
In short, Brzezinski's
"technetronic" society, the
"postindustrial" incarnation of
Technocracy, is the "scientific
dictatorship" advocated by Aldous
Huxley. This "scientific
dictatorship" has always represented
the fulfillment of technocratic doctrine.
Akin reiterates:
“The technocrats attempted to pull all of
these strands--their faith in positivistic
science; their mechanistic view of man with
his essentially animal-like irrationality,
his desire for security, abundance, and
tranquility; the organizational imperative
caused by natural inequality; and the
dominance of technology--together into one
functional ideal whole. It resembled Aldous
Huxley's Brave New World and the managerial
society that James Burnham deplored; it
could lead equally to B.F. Skinner's Walden
Two.” (148)
This, the technocratic agenda of a fully
functional "scientific
dictatorship," is the objective to
which the neoconservatives have resolutely
committed themselves. One needs to look no
further than the Patriot Act, Homeland
Security, and other recent
neoconservative-conceived machinations to
see the intimations of this emergent
"scientific dictatorship."
By now, there should be no more confusion
over the true identity of neoconservatism.
They are not the Godly statesmen endorsed by
America's evangelical Christian
establishment. Nor are they the pro-American
anticommunists portrayed by left-wing
ideologues. They are a cult of
techno-socialists and the outgrowth of an
older conspiratorial traditional. The
post-September 11 world is swiftly becoming
the tangible enactment of their Utopian
doctrine: Technocracy.
Sources Cited
Akin, William E. Technocracy and the
American Dream: The Technocrat Movement,
1900-1941. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
California UP, 1977.
Boot, Max. "Think Again: Neocons"
Foreign Policy January/February 2004.
Brzezinski, Zbigniew. Between Two Ages:
America's Role in the Technetronic Era. New
York: Penguin Books, 1976.
Crabtree, James Dowell. Progressivism, the
New Deal, and the Technocratic Movement of
the 1930s. Dayton, Ohio: Wright State
University, 1995.
Elsner, Henry. The Technocrats: Prophets of
Automation. New York: Syracuse UP, 1967.
Epperson, A. Ralph. The Unseen Hand: An
Introduction to the Conspiratorial View of
History. Tucson, Arizona: Publius Press,
1985.
Fischer, Frank. Technocracy and the Politics
of Expertise. Newbury Park, California: Sage
Publications, 1990.
Hersh, Seymour. "We've Been Taken Over
by a Cult." Democracy NOW! 26 January
2005.
Kristol, Irving. Neoconservativism: The
Autobiography of an Idea. New York: The Free
Press, 1995.
"The Neoconservative Persuasion."
Weekly Standard, 25 August 2003.
Quigley, Carroll. Tragedy and Hope: A
History of the World in our Time. New York:
Macmillan, 1966.
Rubin, Michael. "You Must be
Likud!" National Review Online, 19 May
2004.
Wells, Herbert George. The Shape of Things
to Come. 1933. Electronic Text Collection.
Ed. Steve Thomas. U of Adelaide Library. 29
Oct. 2003.
The Open Conspiracy: H.G. Wells on World
Revolution. 1928. Westport, Connecticut:
Praeger, 2002.
About the Authors
Paul D. Collins has studied suppressed
history and the shadowy undercurrents of
world political dynamics for roughly eleven
years. In 1999, he completed his Associate
of Arts and Science degree. He is working to
complete his Bachelor's degree, with a major
in Communications and a minor in Political
Science. Paul has authored another book
entitled The Hidden Face of Terrorism: The
Dark Side of Social Engineering, From
Antiquity to September 11. Published in
November 2002, the book is available online.
It can be purchased as an e-book (ISBN
1-4033-6798-1) or in paperback format (ISBN
1-4033-6799-X).
Phillip D. Collins acted as the editor for
The Hidden Face of Terrorism. He has also
written articles for Paranoia Magazine and
B.I.P.E.D.: The Official Website of
Darwinian Dissent. He has an Associate of
Arts and Science. Currently, he is studying
for a bachelor's degree in Communications at
Wright State University. During the course
of his seven-year college career, Phillip
has studied philosophy, religion, and
classic literature.
Their book, The Ascendancy of the Scientific
Dictatorship: An Examination of Epistemic
Autocracy, From the 19th to the 21st
Century, is available online.
|
| THIS
ARTICLE FILES UNDER:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IN CASE THIS
ARTICLE WAS QUOTED FROM ANOTHER SOURCE, PLEASE
READ THE DISCLAIMER BELOW
|
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights:
Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
ORIGINAL
LAW TEXT
|
|
|
|
|
|
