Any philosopher with even the most rudimentary insight into the human social dynamic should regard the rebranding of the Pan-American Union with alarm. Once again, humanity has failed to learn its lesson and willingly shackles itself to the same disastrous fate from which it has only recently emerged. The folly, then and now, is not some strategic slip-up or a misguided ideology; the fault lies in a source far more subtle and pervasive, the very paradigm through which society is organized. That the world has been slowly and steadily marching toward dehumanizing technocracy is, as recent history can attest, a fact. But North America’s willing embrace of this doctrine has been conducted with such audacity that even staunch positivists react with skepticism and suspicion.

The term ‘technocracy’, literally, ‘rule by the technicians’, is in the strictest interpretation a cross between the medieval guild system and meritocracy. This semantic is only really of interest to historians and linguists, with common usage tongue-in-cheek to describe a society governed by disinterested and/or self-righteous scientists. Only in the past few decades has it (re)gained traction in the vernacular as a theory of government in its own right, with America the first self-proclaimed technocratic state. But while this modern technocracy does share its philosophical genealogy with its literal Greek reading, its actual manifestation is far more sinister than even the cynics imagine. It is not merely that the public is being conditioned to trust the specialists on the basis of credentials alone; these specialists, in turn, have invested blind faith into the dangerous delusion that their cause is a self-evident truth, that they are merely playing out their preordained role in the great machine that is linear historical progress. What Texark touts as the utopian transcendence of ideology is neither apolitical nor utopian: it is itself an ideology—admittedly a seductive one—that is inherently oppressive, exploitative, and utterly contemptuous of the very faculty it purports to promote.

Plato and Aristotle presupposed the universe to have a purpose. GWF Hegel presupposed the state to be the ultimate expression of a nation’s freedom, and a universal homogeneous State to be that same freedom writ large. No matter the doctrinal differences, every theology takes for granted the beauty and perfection of singularity. To question otherwise is to throw one’s lot in with the Luddite, the barbarian, the irrational. And it is precisely this presupposition’s astounding ability to stifle serious debate that proves the Technocracy illegitimate. We are told that we must trust Science, not because it is inherently good, not even because it is demonstrably good, but simply on the virtue that it is Science. We are told that we can trust Science implicity, because its cornerstone is Reason, and what civilized person would dare contest humanity’s most ubiquitous faculty? Yet we must not forget that the Science that is reclaiming the irradiated wastes is the same Science that built the bombs that irradiated them in the first place. The Science that feeds three-fourths of the world can, as demonstrated by Indonesia in 2106 and 2113, also starve it in an instant. “Trust in progress,” says Texarkana, proclaiming its virtues and denying outright that its progress can ever be fallible.

Of course science is important, and of course so long as humanity is imbued with the dual faculties of reason and curiosity, the march of progress shall continue. Particularly in this post-apocalyptic world, where thousands of acres of land in what was once the cradle of civilization are now utterly uninhabitable, where billions of people do not know the taste of naturally-grown food, the very survival not only of our species, but of the entire planetary biosphere depends on technology. But just as even the most self-assured general cannot command his battalion across a gaping chasm without expecting his men to fall to their deaths, so too the so-called specialists cannot mold the world to their ideal simply by ignoring inconvenient truths. The pursuit of science is still as valid and noble as it has ever been, and it is therefore so imperative that the Technocracy be exposed for the anti-scientific charlatan it is. The scientific inquiry has been bastardized; a philosophy rooted in the principle of doubt, of challenge, of always and ever questioning, has been twisted into a prescriptive dogma of obedience. A regime that claims to embody the pinnacle of Western progressivist thought is in fact the shrewdest implementation of its polar opposite.

Science itself is not democratic. Factual validity does not lend itself to majority opinion. The pursuit of science, however, demands a democratic thinking space. Only through the freedom to inquire, to debate, to experiment, are theories proven or debunked and the truth revealed. It is therefore essential that whatever its political implications, science remain apolitical and the scientific community maintain a healthy distance from the power brokers. Here is the first great danger of the Technocracy, for it foments an incestuous relationship between Science and the State. It is one thing for a government to sponsor scientific development; but when absorbed into the state apparatus so completely, the notion that science will remain neutral quickly becomes absurd. Whenever anything becomes institutionalized, it grows rife with conservatism, cronyism, and dogmatism; even outside of the collusive North American context, the war between the legitimating journal and the lowly field scientist rages each and every day. How much deeper will the status quo be entrenched once those ivory-tower bureaucrats are vested with full state power? How vulnerable will dissenting voices become? A century and a half ago the world ridiculed those countries that sought to veto scientific theories on the basis of ideology; but when science is that ideology, who will be brave enough to decry the emperor’s nudity?

The second great danger of the Technocracy is that it subordinates Science to Technology. This is not merely an issue of government policy, but the very heart of the technocratic paradigm. Humanity presupposes that technology is a tool it has designed, a force multiplier, an aid. And it is. But technology brings with it a way of thinking, a deeply materialist and utilitarian ethic of which few are even conscious and even fewer take for anything other than granted. What is technology, but a means of increasing efficiency? Inventions are appraised based on their immediate usefulness: if it runs longer, works harder, moves faster, it is marketed, adopted, becomes a life essential. Luxury translates into basic necessity; the standard of productivity rises; greater efficiency is demanded and new inventions are needed, and the cycle continues. It should hardly be surprising that even the most politically repressive regimes follow free market economies, as these provide the most efficient means of wealth generation and resource extraction. The most important feature of this paradigm is that it pays absolutely no regard to ethics, except those which fit within the technocratic frame: everything, from material production to environmental conservation to human relations, is calculated on a ruthless cost-benefit analysis. It is more efficient to outsource to sweatshops than pay a living wage. It is more efficient to slaughter an enemy village wholesale than contend with political dissidents. It is more efficient to remove the legislature, executive, and judiciary from public oversight than face demoralizing protests, costly court battles and needless procedural roadblocks over outdated religious morality.

This is the third great danger of the Technocracy: it redefines the parameters of public debate and participation. The most fatal error the concerned citizen can make at this juncture is to erroneously assume that the question of efficiency has no political ramifications. Science may have made Technology, but under the technocratic paradigm, and especially under the conflict of interest that defines the Technocratic Union, scientific inquiry will no longer concern itself with objective truth, but serve as the legitimating lackey to the State agenda. Though the state now brands itself a republican confederation, the regime put in place by St. Louis remains unmitigated, if not stronger than ever, the pretext of democracy a distraction from a tyranny more insidious than the most craven totalitarian: one not affixed to any one leader, party, or ideology, but the entire social psyche itself. It is a regime predicated on manufacturing consent, not through showy propaganda, but precisely through the perpetuation of an incontestible and ‘self-evident’ materialist faith that presents its twisted vision of science and reason as uncontested truths. At the same time it purports to establish a new status quo based on objective fact, it is concentrating decision-making power within the hands of an exclusive clique that unlike elected representatives is removed from public scrutiny. This clique is governed by a pure cost-benefit ethic under which everything, including human lives, is mere standing-reserve, free to be exploited by and for whatever means most efficiently serve the interest of the State.

Contrary to its self-conceived image, the Technocratic Union does not represent a substantial break from traditional ideologically-driven politics. It does, however, constitute an important paradigm shift in political discourse, but one that should be read with extreme skepticism. While it claims to embody the highest virtues of science and reason, in practice it has corrupted the very essence of scientific inquiry through a ruthlessly antidemocratic philosophy of utilitarian materialism. But the Texark folly must not be mistaken for a purely North American phenomenon: it is merely the most cognizant demonstration of a philosophy that despite precipitating the calamitous world war has lurked uncontested for at least two hundred years. Scientists of the Twentieth Century made the atomic bomb, but the State deployed it; under the Technocracy, the scientists will deploy it, without reservation. If Hegel was right and the Technocracy is all the cunning of Reason, then perhaps rationality is not the magnanimous benefactor that we have presupposed.