![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Technocracy In-Fighting
Last night I received yet another email from somebody claiming to be involved in the Technocracy, Inc movement. According to this person, Skip Seivert, the other technocrats who contacted me (upset over my alleged misrepresentation of them) have been “discredited” and do not represent the official views of that organization. I will let Skip’s email stand for itself, as I’m a little confused over the whole thing myself still. Where he says “Technocracy.ca” he is referring to the original group of would-be technocrats who contacted me:
Hi Tim. I don`t know you, but I am a very active member of Technocracy . I am a card carrying member of Technocracy inc. I am speaking for my self though ,when I would like to inform you of a couple things. The Technocracy.ca site that you were on recently has been discredited because of its leader there who has an interesting, shall we say ingenious interpretation of Technocracy. Bill DesJardines is the guy I am talking about. Known as Kolzene on the site.
I looked into your Q and A you had with them and I can tell you that you deserved better answers to your questions than you got. The trouble.? The site has been discredited because of the dumbed down , and ego tripping element that it represents. They have rewritten some of our classic material , and pass it off as technocracyinc or technocracy stuff which it really isn`t. What is it.? That is a whole other question.
Technocracy will never build church`s or temples or religious meeting halls for any group in a technate. That was wrong and/or disinformation they gave you. It comes out of a document that they call their F.A.Q , It has been discredited. They also talk about divorce in a Technate . Also wrong. There are no contracts in a Technate. No marriage , no divorce. Am I serious.? Yes. People are not controled in that way any longer. That is what the price system does to control the caste or class system. Again this is not Technocracy. Not at all.
Kolzene was stripped of his involvemnt in our other site which is www.technocracyinc.org , the official website. That site is now being remodeled minus his , Kolzenes or DesJardines material.
Do you understand now.? I can also tell you for a fact that Bill DesJardines is not a current member of Technocracy incorporated. Fact. Not that that makes that much difference , a Technocrat is a technocrat.
Fact is he fancy`s himself a Guru type. He has written a lot of happy horseshit stuff which as I said , because of myself , and a few others has been discredited.
I would be happy to fill you in on anything you care to know. I was particularly interested in some of the more intellectual questions you asked, about technocracy being a philosophy more than a science, or what.
If you care to I cover this subject pretty much in my book Beyond the Cloak of Deception , Politics, Religion & Economics in the Price System . It is a kind of fun and wild read. There are currently around 40,000 copies out. I wrote it this year. The best part is that it is free, as a download from my site, or if you like I could email you a file copy for your records. I do offer paper copies for a price, but free is always my favorite business plan.
If you feel like it read my book. I probably could give you a promo paper copy if you want to give me an address or po box . I think you will understand the whole thing better. Also on my site is the original Technocracy Study Course first published in 1934. Yes it is the real deal. Not dumbed down and unlike the people you spoke to it makes no excuses for itself. People can make of it what they want to. I consider one of the great and most interesting things written last century. Free also on my site above or I can send you an email file of it if you like.
About all I can say that I won`t bullshit you. Also I am in touch with other people that have been involved and know it , the program from a to z. I really would like you to understand what Technocracy is about. You will not be able to with the cast and crew from the techncracy ca site. Although they have some points right.
If you feel like it google my name Skip Sievert and that will also tell you alot as to the Technocracy movement, and my current place in it.
O.K. Tim , Thankyou for bringing any new attention to technocracy. We are looking for new members now, and there has been a lot of attention and renewed interest in our movement as of the last few years. This is very positive as we believe that technocracy or something a hell of a lot like it is the only way out of the all around mess we are in right now.
Explore Technocracy. Skip Sievert.Feel free to post or blog , or make any part of this email public information. Thanks.
So there you have it - splinter factions making their appearance among what is otherwise an altogether obscure philosophy of scientifically-managed governance. I’ll have to see if I can get Skip to send me a free copy of his book and get back to you…
- Abbas: Send in the Technocrats!
- Technocracy & Science Fiction
- A Technocrat’s Response
- Events In 1955
- Fighting monsters
- Prev: Scientific Funding
- Next: The Dunwich Horror
September 8th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Yeah, I’m confused as well. Awhile back I went surfing everywhere to collect different versions of their supposed original documents that were converted to electronic documents. I found a few documents here & there, but nothing was really cleared up because many of the different versions I arrived at had digital signatures that were changed, not to mention not knowing wether or not the original digital signatures were even from the original Technocracy, Inc. source… I think I’d go with Sievert on this one, as he seems more genuine in intent than the others; especially having written a book and offering it for free.
However, when it comes right down to it, originality doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is if it makes sense and works… If the original version of the Technocracy Study Guide had parts that didn’t make sense &/or didn’t work, then why not revise it? However, if someone is revising it and the revision doesn’t make sense &/or work, then what good is originality? Of course, the system we have now is not working, …so anyone’s opinion, technocratically or not, can be valid; especially if it makes sense and works.
As Douglas Rushkoff once said, paraphrasing; …in accordance with Judaism, where he was asking a Jewish head if he would condone the teachings of Judaism, only without calling it Judaism; to which the Jewish head replied no… Therefore it’s the name itself that people are placing too much importance on, rather than the actual teachings, regardless if it makes sense or not… Ditto to technocracy.
Oh yeah, I uploaded a few of the pdf’s and links in zip format. Feel free to download it here; Scroll down and click free and it’ll let you download it after 1 minute
September 8th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
What makes his intent more genuine? His intent seems to be mainly to set himself up as an expert - which is the whole impetus behind technocracy anyway: that experts should lead. He’s taken some classic steps to make himself appear as an expert: (1) he has bashed other so-called experts, pointing out how they are false (without being too specific of course), and (2) he has written a book, the classic measure of expertise within our culture, and (3) he is offering a free version of his idea, which is a half-hearted attempt to make it seem like he is circumventing the “price system” he purports to hate. Meanwhile though, he is still selling actual copies of his book, rather than sending out a free printed copy to anyone and everyone.
So, no, I do not necessarily trust his intent more than anyone else’s.
Makes sense to me, although we could change “technocracy study guide” to “US Constitution” and have a whole other conversation…!
I’m not sure I’m willing to put an “of course” in front of that statement. I would ask you to explain why you think our system is not working, which should lead us into a conversation about what your qualifications in general would be for a system to be considered “working” - which should lead us in turn to a discussion of human value systems, from which we ought to be able to contruct a system which protects those values, which leads us (hopefully) back to the constitution, as mentioned above.
September 8th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
The problems of human existence boil down to power dynamics. It’s all about power on this plane of existence.
While the Technocratic movement(s) may have ingenious methods for reshuffling the power roles and relationships, there is still the original problem of one group having power over another.
In my misspent youth, I would construct imaginary utopias. No matter what, the same problem (other than that life in them would be boring) emerged: people in power had power over people who didn’t have power. One of these so-called utopias involved a technocratic elite who would live in an orbiting space-ship and zap misbehaving communities. I think that pretty much speaks for itself.
September 8th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
All this Technocracy in-fighting would make a good Don DeLillo plot, but the top prize goes to Lot 49 once again.
W.A.S.T.E.= We Await Silent Tristero’s Empire
September 8th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
James: plug your bugle….
[
]
September 8th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Hey, I will definitely read that book when I have a chance. Hopefully soon!
September 8th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
The very fact that there’s in-fighting going on makes their whole supposed position of ‘objectivity’ seem to be, well, bullshit. And isn’t that one of the pillars supporting their whole ’cause’? If they’re truly objective, there should be no room for argument. Duh.
September 8th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
I think technocrats have slightly more influence in the public discourse than Lord of the Ring dorks- but not as much influence as Star Trek hipsters.
September 8th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Well, I don’t think “technocrats” as a term or as the groups I’ve encountered online have much of any real influence at all. But I do believe that the Positivist models of scientific management of human populations (for which I am merely using technocracy as a simple and elegant stand-in) do have enormous sway. That is, they are close to all powerful on earth at this point
September 8th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
But I do believe that the Positivist models of scientific management of human populations (for which I am merely using technocracy as a simple and elegant stand-in) do have enormous sway. That is, they are close to all powerful on earth at this point
Yup. Scientific institutions are largely positivist, including sociological ones. Randians are of course positivist, and although they specifically are not very powerful right now, a lot of their ideas have gotten popular, like the conflation of industry with morality. Straussians are positivistic, there is a direct lineage of ideas from Comte to Strauss. Marxism is positivist.
( Don’t ever antagonize the horn!
)
September 8th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
I suppose what I said was bad wording. When I said it’s not working, I should have said that it’s not working in favour of long-term health & sustainability of a lasting interdependent ecosystem. But then that’s getting back to values, because who cares about the long-term health and well being of everyone’s family’s constitutional rights? Further, who really cares about the future at all, when scientists say the sun will eventually fry the earth in the way distant future? Or even now, with global climate change, toxification of the environment, resource overdepletion, etc. Where do we draw the lines before we admit “something” hasn’t been working? or do we ignore those experts, just for the sake of ignoring experts, …even if it means our own demise? just so in the end, we can say we ignored experts because we didn’t believe experts should exist?
Now, granted, I’m not saying to not be aware of the BS &/or corruption of experts. However, it takes a real expert to be aware of that, because someone can’t run off to college everytime they read an article about climate change, in order to fact check & process enough to really be thorough in the understanding to know wether or not to drive their vehicle. Now, I know there are more subtle influences occuring in much of the media & publications, and it’s not always that cut & dry as knowing wether or not to drive a vehicle based on belief/disbelief, educated/ignorant, within values of life, or lack there-of
We can have a true democracy, and without a system in place to educate people properly, stagnation &/or poor tendencies can flourish; which in turn imposes bad decisions on the future.
However, unlike a philosophy of experts leading the way, I believe we should all be individual experts of varying degrees. If you want to delve more into that, I highly reccommend being aware, if not already, of Neuro-Linguistic Programming.
Also, as an example, we can have a fascist for a leader, and have him fascistly impose freedom to such an extent that everyone believes it is ok to hide behind the constitutional right/duty to impose their destructive disregard & ignorance on the health & well being of long-term sustainability, which in turn imposes a denuded health & well being for future families that have yet to be.
For those families that are going to be born dealing with our destructive disregard, are we not denuding their capability of constitutional representation? If that future becomes a present reality, who will they be able to hold accountable? IE: the system begins to break down, and stops working. IE: Something needs to change &/or be re-implemented in order for that particular denuded future to not become a reality. IE: is why I said “of course.”
Of course, that’s not to say that we can’t change using the same exact system we have now. I guess it comes down to wether people should place more value on life now, or life in the future; or do we wish to be valuing life both now & in the future. I’m sure you’ll be able to pick apart most of my premises & ideas, so I look forward to your thoughts & comments.
September 8th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Thanks for that clarification in general as you laid plain a lot of things that had been obscured for me. I dont have much time to respond at the moment, but:
I have a post about that appearing in a few days from now. I think it’s one of the more bedeviling questions around this whole thing!
September 9th, 2006 at 1:24 am
I think it is high time we all rewatch Terry Gilliam’s “The Adventures of Baron Munchausen” and remember the sometimes silly consequences of “hard reason”. Let’s not forget the Rand Corp. and their failings in Vietnam. These guys also reveal (not too subtle) references to eugenic/genocidal tendencies. Not ruling them out, just like to keep my eyes and ears open.
September 9th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Uh wouldn’t a card (smart or otherwise) be a security risk, thereby being able to have been pried from your cold dead hands?
-your friendly local systems administrator, or otherwise.
-tc
syseng@msn.com
and God cried for us,
and we carried on.
September 9th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
O wonder is there an occult war between the mystics and the positivists?
I wonder how much longer the positivists can keep on propagating the material and denying the spirit and the spirit world?
I know I prefer a little surreal chaos to bathe my innards in if I am subjected or exposed to (too much of) the intellectual torture chamber called technocracy, objectivism or marxism. Where has the spirit of Dada gone?
September 9th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
1 thing I have to ask about Technocracy, “What would PKD say”
September 9th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
There may very well be. Or it may be that positivists ARE mystics in some sense. That I find more troubling
September 9th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
I think PKD would have simply called the Technate a “police state”
September 10th, 2006 at 5:35 am
Wow, you’d think the Technocracy could figure out a better way to deliver their message than that click-back inducing website their pawning off as informative.
September 10th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Well, look at this. I just got a THIRD email saying that both the other emails I got do not represent Technocracy. Or I think that’s what is being said.
September 10th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Maybe these battling technocracy dudes are just having a jolly one on us. If you get all wrapped up in trying to figure out who represents the TRUE technocracy, you might forget to question the existence and validity of the technocracy altogether. (Replace the word technocracy in the above statement with “Religion” and it appears to be the same old monkey-politics power game as ever…)
September 11th, 2006 at 10:20 am
D.E.A.T.H.= Don’t Ever Antagonize The Horn