The Technocratic Elitism of Modern Environmentalism

Book Review: Patrick Wood’s

“Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation”

Modern America is saddled with many albatrosses weighing heavily upon the neck of her God given liberties coming from a variety of different directions – everything from the entitlement ethos to leftist political correctness, from a staggering debt never before seen in its history to many foreign despotic enemies lurking behind the shadows of the so-called United Nations, from post-modern socialism and/or environmentalism to an amorality based on Darwinism together with its mutated culture of death wrapped around abortion, divorce, marital infidelity, and a sexual madness that willfully refuses to differentiate between male and female.  Enter another serious difficulty that many overlook in spite of it being virtually omnipresent in today’s digital age – the very theme of Patrick Wood’s book, “Rising Technocracy: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation”  (Coherent Publishing, 2015, 274 pages).  As Patrick Wood warns, “The dark horse of the New World Order is not Communism, Fascism, or Socialism.  It is technocracy.”

Technocracy Inc. was born in New York during the early 1930’s under the charlatan leadership of Howard Scott (1890-1970) who used the cover of Columbia University for a time to develop scientific social engineering schemes along technocratic lines. Promising economic freedom through a scientific and/or technological elitism together with social engineering that would match allegedly a new Reformation, if not a new Declaration of Independence, Scott developed a cult like following through his pseudo-science that proved to be somewhat popular at the time.

“Society was ripe for Technocracy during the depths of the Great Depression.  It certainly appeared that capitalism was dead.  Joblessness, deflation, hunger, anger at politicians and capitalists, and other social stresses had people begging for an explanation as to what went wrong and what could be done to fix it.  Technocracy Inc. had both: Capitalism had died a natural death, and a new Technocracy-orientated society could save them.  The engineers, scientists and technicians who would operate this Technocratic Utopia would eliminate all waster and corruption, people would have a job!  Abundance would be everywhere.  The only price for this was they had to get rid of the politicians and the political institutions and let the technocrats run things instead.”  FDR himself tapped into some of these technocratic sentiments when he brought forth the New Deal to help get America back on its feet.  In 1937 Technocracy was defined as the holistic “science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population of this continent.  For the first time in history, it will be done as a scientific, technical, engineering problem.”

However, during World War II, America turned her back on Scott’s radical utopianism as many had become increasingly aware of National Socialism’s own technocratic predilections, some of which was even promoted by Technocracy Inc. within Germany itself for a time.  By the end of the war, Americans rejected Scott’s pseudo-scientific schemes in favor of constitutional democracy and national sovereignty together with private property and private wealth.

However, as Technocracy fell out of the national limelight, it did not disappear or die.  According to Wood, Technocracy was later reinvigorated again through the development of the Trilateral Commission in the early 1970’s – with nothing but power and money to advance its goals in ways that Scott himself could only have dreamed of back in the 1930’s.  The Trilateral Commission, comprised of private rich elitists, corporatists, and academics from North America, Europe, and Japan, was first presented to the public by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1972.  In particular, the executive branch of the USA has since been dominated by Trilateral Commission members since Jimmy Carter.  Wood is convinced this one of the primary reasons why the presidential office has accumulated more and more unaccountable power to itself at the expense of the limited powers originally granted to it by the U.S. Constitution.

Wood asserts that Columbia professor Brzezinski and the university’s primary patron, the Rockefeller’s, represents the forged link between the Technocracy of the 1930’s and its modern counterpart known as the Trilateral Commission.  In 1970, Brzezinski wrote “Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era.”  Wood believes that Brzezinski smartly replaced the word “technocracy” with “technetronic” to avoid the bad connotations associated with Scott’s scientism.

After establishing the connection between Technocracy and the Trilateral Commission, the rest of Wood’s book goes on to show how technocratic ideals are at the heart of the ongoing and future plans of the elites to transform politics, economics, government, religion, and law with globalism, holism, legalism, sustainable development, population control, and even surveillance so that humanity will be transformed into a technetronic utopia at the expense of personal liberty and political/economic freedom.  In particular, to accomplish this great goal, the technocrats today are using the totalitarian impulses of the green movement through the implementation of Agenda 21, the Earth Charter, the smart grid, renewable energy, and carbon energy credits.  This future utopia will be economically based on tightly regulating energy consumption through carbon credits that will allegedly transcend the present limits of the human condition saddled with the inefficiencies and waste of free enterprise capitalism and national currencies that their technocracy can scientifically manage properly for all of mankind in an environmentally sustainable way.

While Wood’s presentation in the heart of his book is outstanding on how Technocracy is to be used to transform and/or evolve the planet into a transhumanist paradise run by elites, it is disjointed from his discussion on the Trilateral Commission from the earlier chapters.  Surprisingly, the discussion about the Trilateral Commission is largely muted from chapters 4 onwards where Wood begins to delve into the discussion about the dangers of Technocracy.  Wood presumes the reader will see them as one in the same.  Perhaps they are indeed, but he needs to flesh this relationship out with much more research to make it clear.

Wood also needs to tackle the issue on whether or not Brzezinski himself was openly advocating a strong dictatorial technocracy in his 1970 book on the so-called Technetronic Era, or whether he was simply describing a future dangerous scenario that could all too easily get out of control.  While Wood presumes the former because of Brzezinski’s views on political evolution that will supposedly outgrow the communist, capitalist, and socialist discussions of the past in favor of non-ideological technocratic answers, there is no small controversy over this particular matter that needs to be addressed in the book.  In the process of so doing, Wood needs to further clarify why his thesis is not to be confused with conspiracy theorists who rail against the alleged illuminati running the world.

Neither does Wood necessarily make a convincing case that Technocracy will replace the political ideals of Communism, Fascism, or Socialism.  If anything, Wood unwittingly makes a strong case that Technocracy is just a more modernized form of Fascism.  Anyone who has done his homework on National Socialism will quickly realize how much of Wood’s discussion on Technocracy is very similar to Nazi yesteryear.  Environmental population control and transhumanism are just different labels for old terms like Social Darwinism and eugenics.  National Socialism was also strongly based on scientism, evolution, holism, millennial utopianism, environmentalism, tight energy regulation, renewable energy, and was the first modern government to implement sustainable development schemes among other pioneering green policies into its national political makeup.  The Nazis even prided themselves as being non-ideological as they presumed their politics represented a third middle way between the extremes of communism and capitalism.  In other words, the original Technocracy was not tied to the environmental movement.  Why is Technocracy so tied to the modern green movement today?  The answer to that question represents an ideological shift that is not as apolitical as the technocrats would have it.

It is thus perhaps better to say that a transhumanist technocracy run by elites and a scientific dictatorship with strong green predilections will make the Nazi eugenic program of the 1930’s look extremely primitive by comparison.  While National Socialism died on the great battlefields of World War II, it is in the process of being replaced by another form of fascism so advanced that it is taking the world by complete surprise, especially with its strong ties to the green movement.  Indeed, the father of German Social Darwinism, Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), coined the term ecology in 1866.  In those days, Social Darwinism was called scientific Monism, which is another word for evolutionary and/or environmental holism, which later was replaced with political Fascism.  Thus the relationship between scientism, eugenics, evolution, and ecology was forged at the very beginning of the modern environmental movement in Germany, and it was precisely this fusion that later brought to the world what is otherwise today known as Fascism.  Furthermore, environmentalism does not transcend Fascism.  Environmentalism is Fascism, and it ties to eugenics at its very roots reveals its basic elitist character.

One of the great services that Wood’s book does is that it strongly demonstrates environmentalism is not the antiquated backward looking movement run by hippies running around in the woods, but is powerfully connected to big money, big government, multinational corporatist interests, and yes, of course, even technocracy.  Some of the greenest companies in America today are from the ultra-rich tech industry, including Google, Packard, Apple, Microsoft, etc.  Environmental lobby groups like the Sierra Club, the Earth Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy, along with many others, are all brimming with mountains of cash funded by rich and powerful groups like the Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller and MacArthur Foundations, etc., all of whom work closely together in a corrupt relationship with government agencies in order to milk the American taxpayer out of even more money – using the auspices of regulatory burden to flush it out.  The same is true in Europe as well.

What is truly astounding is how the hippy counter culture movement of the 1960’s has foolishly latched onto modern environmentalism that is essentially run by the old landed European aristocracy that found its underlying philosophical and religious underpinning persuasively argued the best in the academic halls of Germany throughout the 1800’s.  As Canadian environmental critic William Kay so artfully and forcefully argues, “Capitalism and democracy did not emerge from a centuries-old struggle against socialism as millennial libertarians seem to believe. No, the modern world emerged bloodied and bruised from an inconclusive brawl with landlordism. A desperate drive by the landed interest to prevent their principal assets from being commoditized is environmentalism’s motor. Should we ever be blessed with open land markets, landlordism would all but disappear; and while the masses appear innocently unaware of this possibility, the land barons (public sector pension fund managers among them) are vigilantly mindful of it.”

Since the aristocracy owns much of the land, environmental legalism keeps them in power with high rent and energy costs, which is especially buoyed by the spell binding character of nature worship that is at the heart of the green movement.  Environmentalism and technocracy are mere smokescreens for the landed rich to continue to exploit the middle class taxpayers of America and Europe to keep them in their place through a form of fascism that has even fooled the old Marxists and Socialists – who used to work against the oligarchy.  Thanks to the leftist conversion from Marxism and/or Socialism to environmentalism beginning in the 1960’s, the landed aristocracy has found a way to get the revolutionaries off their backs and to target and direct their relentless energies against small business and the middle class rather than against themselves.  Even the Republican blue blood syndrome is divided along these particular fault lines.  In a word, uber-rich environmentalists like Ted Turner and Al Gore could not be happier.  Worst of all, what kind of future are such elitists trying to lead the world into?  With regard to some of the most rich, well-connected, and powerful, Patrick Wood’s book, “Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation,” goes a long way in answering that question – and it makes Orwell’s science fiction fantasy seem mild by comparison.

Mark Musser is a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance, which is a coalition of clergy, theologians, religious leaders, scientists, academics, and policy experts committed to bringing a balanced biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development. Mark is the author of Nazi Oaks: The Green Sacrifice of the Judeo-Christian Worldview in the Holocaust and Wrath or Rest: Saints in the Hands of an Angry God.

Comments are closed.