[tmbchr]™

Technocracy & The Noble Lie



A technocracy in essence, is a government by experts: ie, scientists, sociologists, civil planners, etc. I have been speculating that this was essentially the true purpose of groups like the Illuminati, which I think can be inferred through quotes by Adam Weishaupt (the group’s founder) such as this:

For this purpose he would unite men in a common bond. He would fit them for this by spreading a just morality, by enlightning the understanding, and by assisting the mind to shake off all prejudices. He would teach all men, in the first place, to govern themselves. Rulers would then be needless, and equality and liberty would take place without any revolution, by the natural and gentle operation of reason and expediency.

The contradiction in what Weishaupt outlines above is that while he claims rulers would be needless, teachers however would be essential to guiding that development. Who would the teachers be? Clearly they would be the wise men, the learned - experts, or technocrats in other words.

Now, let’s imagine again that there are a “secret” group of technocrats ruling the planet. Why wouldn’t they just make themselves known and right all the wrongs we see in the world today? My proudly unfalsifiable theory suggests that they would not, simply because it would cause massive unrest. Imagine if tomorrow, a group of scientists held a press conference and said the following:

“We’d like to announce that we’re taking over the world, and will be running things from here on out through rational and scientific methods. We will use our collective expertise to solve all world problems, but it will require your full cooperation and that you bow to our superior knowledge at all times.”

What we would see, I think, is overnight worldwide revolution. Sure, some of us might be willing to take the gamble and install this committe of philosopher kings. But for the most part, we are all too addicted (at least in America) to the ideals of Classical Liberalism and democracy which this country was founded on. “No egghead scientist is gonna tell me how to live! Come on Jimmy, get your shotgun! We’re headed to the university to teach those geeks a lesson!”

So, continuing with my little fantasy world that I’m creating, if you really were an expert in sociology, you would be aware of such a scenario being likely played out if you were to make that announcement publicly. Instead, I postulate that you would allow people to maintain their illusions of self-determination, individual sovereignty and representative-democratic rule. The Noble Lie, as it were.

My main question then becomes: how can we prove this theory wrong? That is, without simply saying: “That’s not how things are!” Because how things are - or how they appear to be - could be part and parcel of the Noble Lie.

, , , , ,





11 Reader Responses

  1. Paul Says:
    July 28th, 2006 at 6:09 pm

    Hey Tim,

    Interesting discussions!

    I’m not sure if it could be proved either way, but I’m sure it cannot unless all agree on certain definitions beforehand. For example, in the previous thread you posed the question in terms of whether we live in a “free republican system of government” I believe. Pregnant, that. Unless it is unpacked the difficult work of proof would be lost in endless semantic arguments.

    Unfortunately I suspect that arriving at a set of universally accepted definitions would be impossible, which would render the proof impossible, but not because the proof itself is impossible.

    Paul

  2. Tim Boucher Says:
    July 28th, 2006 at 6:19 pm

    Unless it is unpacked the difficult work of proof would be lost in endless semantic arguments.

    Interesting point. Forgive me if I tend to enjoy the endless semantic arguments!

    Unfortunately I suspect that arriving at a set of universally accepted definitions would be impossible

    I think this dovetails in neatly with what I was saying about moral relativism and the liberal stance that no internal state is better than another…

  3. Tim Boucher Says:
    July 28th, 2006 at 6:20 pm

    Reading through Edward Bernays’ book Propaganda has been very enlightening in this area. Just found a quote from him in 1928 which cuts very much to this conversation here (p 12):

    Formerly the rulers were the leaders. They laid out the course of history, by the simple process of doing what they wanted. And if nowadays the successors of the rulers, those whose position or ability gives them power, can no longer do what they want without the approval of the masses, they find in propaganda a tool which is increasingly powerful in gaining that approval. Therefore, propaganda is here to stay.

    He goes on to talk about how people saw how effective propaganda was in motivating people to action during the First World War, that they then adapted the techniques they used during peacetime. He describes the techniques like so:

    developed a technique which, to most persons accustomed to bidding for public acceptance, was new. They not only appealed to the individual by means of every approach - visual, graphic, and auditory - to support the national endeavor, but they also secured the cooperation of the key men in every group -persons whose mere word carried authority to hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers. They thus automatically gained the support of fraternal, religious, commercial, patriotic, social and local groups whose members took their opinions from their accustomed leaders and spokesmen, or from the periodical publications which they were accustomed to read and believe.

    And from page 14:

    But clearly it is the intelligent minorities which need to make use of propaganda continuously and systematically. In the active proselytizing minorities in whom selfish interests and public interests coincide lie the progress and development of America. Only through the active energy of the intelligent few can the public at large become aware of and act upon new ideas.

    This book is nothing short of incredible:

    WHO are the men who, without our realizing it, give us our ideas, tell us whom to admire and whom to despise, what to believe about the ownership of public utilities, about the tariff, about the price of rubber, about the Dawes Plan, about immigration; who tell us how our houses should be designed, what furniture we should put into them, what menus we should serve on our table, what kind of shirts we must wear, what sports we should indulge in, what plays we should see, what charities we should support, what pictures we should admire, what slang we should affect, what jokes we should laugh at?

    If we set out to make a list of the men and women who, because of their position in public life, might fairly be called the molders of public opinion, we could quickly arrive at an extended list of persons mentioned in “Who’s Who.”

    Bear in mind that this was written over seventy five years ago!

  4. Paul Says:
    July 28th, 2006 at 6:47 pm

    Total forgiveness for enjoying the semantic arguments! I enjoy them too, but though necessary, if they are not eventually resolved one way or the other they prevent the progress of further argument on the “real” issues. Of course semantic arguments can be used as a proxy for argument on the “real issues,” but this results in a lack of clarity and something less than a real debate.

    You’ve written so much today that I’d like to respond to, but I can’t. This one point occurred to me though, which I think you might enjoy:

    If there is a conspiracy driving the US government today, it is at the bureaucratic level rather than the political level. I say this because it is the bureaucrats (e.g., at the state department and the defense department, the CIA and the FBI) who have been in power for a long time, and have a real stake in the system. Also, they think, given their long experience in power, that they know best, better than anyone (and especially their political “poseur” bosses) what should be done at a given moment. Titular heads, such as presidents and cabinet secretaries of various parties, come and go. But the bureaucracies are forever.

    Even more interesting (to me at least) is that the bureaucracies war with one another! E.g., state vs. defense vs. cia vs. fbi.

    All of which leads me to the conclusion that the likelihood of any all-powerful “conspiracy” is remote, at least.
    Which leads me to believe that if there is a conspiracy, there are more than one, and thanks to the civil service laws, they operate at a level beyond the reach of the voters, and yet not at the top of the political structure.

  5. Tim Boucher Says:
    July 28th, 2006 at 7:11 pm

    If there is a conspiracy driving the US government today, it is at the bureaucratic level rather than the political level. […] Which leads me to believe that if there is a conspiracy, there are more than one

    I will have to agree, except I would factor in a number of other groups: corporations, foundations, you name it. It may also be that the “dark and terrible truth” of our system of government is that it is simply designed to pit conspiracies against one another and thereby strike a tenuous sort of balance! That makes more sense to me than any possible over-arching “evil” schemes.

  6. Paul Says:
    July 28th, 2006 at 7:50 pm

    It may also be that the “dark and terrible truth” of our system of government is that it is simply designed to pit conspiracies against one another and thereby strike a tenuous sort of balance! That makes more sense to me than any possible over-arching “evil” schemes.

    The authors of the Federalist Papers would agree in substance, although not that this idea is either dark or terrible. Factions!

  7. alistair Says:
    July 28th, 2006 at 10:15 pm

    divide and conquer………..sure, why not. though we keep tacitly agreeing that there is a plan. what if there isn`t? what if god left a long time ago and left us all here occasionally looking up to the skies and wondering?

  8. Paul Says:
    July 28th, 2006 at 11:52 pm

    Hey Alistair,

    But it’s not divide and conquer, it’s divide and govern!

    Best,
    Paul

  9. SubstanceM Says:
    July 30th, 2006 at 7:40 pm

    though we keep tacitly agreeing that there is a plan. what if there isn`t?

    That reminds me exactly of something I read recently - is it scary to believe that there are conspiratorial groups guiding the destiny of the world - or is it scarier to believe that there is no one actually in control at all. This ship’s just being thrown about with no destination mapped.

  10. Frank Tanner Says:
    July 31st, 2006 at 3:52 pm

    how can we prove this absurd theory wrong, you ask. Occam’s razor should do the trick

  11. Tim Boucher Says:
    July 31st, 2006 at 4:14 pm

    how can we prove this absurd theory wrong, you ask. Occam’s razor should do the trick

    Occam’s razor is also a theory though - and it is one whose sole purpose is to create narrative efficiency. You can’t simply replace one theory for another and say that anything has been proven!



SURROUND YOURSELF WITH STRENGTH.