Forcing Change, Volume 1, Issue 8

Engineering a New World:

Technocracy and Transformation - Part 1

By Carl Teichrib, Chief Editor



Index to previous articles

This article is Part 1 of a multi-part series. It is historically oriented. That said, it’s also one of the most important articles published in Forcing Change,as it tackles an historical worldview that is seldom discussed, yet vitally important to understanding today’s global transformation.

 “Rugged individualism must go… The individual must subordinate himself to the community…” – Graham A. Laing (1)

Those disturbing words didn’t spring out of Nazi Germany, Benito’s fascist Italy, or Stalin’s heavy-handed Soviet Union – although the text was common to that era. Rather, the idea that “individualism must go” was the language of a very American movement, one that rapidly spread during the 1930s. From Columbia University to newspapers coast-to-coast, Technocracy was the buzzword for a new way of organizing humanity.

Mention “Technocracy” today and a mix of responses emerge. “It’s in a lot science fiction books,” explained one younger friend. “It’s a model for a utopian world run by technology.”

An older gentleman, a product of the 1940s, laughed when I mentioned the word; “It was a crack-pot idea with a cult following. Thankfully it died long ago.”

Another friend who was a child during the Great Depression remembers hearing about it at the kitchen table, and seeing Technocracy literature in the house.

Technocracy was all of the above: a utopian dream, a cult-like movement, and a concept that captured the public’s attention. But it was and is much more; it’s the prime motivator. Today, the fingerprints of Technocracy are deeply impressed upon the political, economic, military, social and spiritual landscape. There isn’t anything that Technocracy hasn’t touched, chiefly because as a type of meta-philosophy, it rests on the most basic principle of human rebellion: By pursuing god-like illumination, Man can become as God.

Man, not God, is the ultimate engineer of human destiny – therefore, Man is God. Technocracy represents the pinnacle of Man’s quest for self-deification: The perfectibility of Man through the thoughts of his mind and the subsequent works of his hands. It’s the cosmic taunt, stemming from the most ancient of days. What God can do, Man can do. The Garden of Eden will be remade.

At the personal level, the first Techno-fingerprint came to view in 2009. And after seeing it, I couldn’t believe I had somehow overlooked Technocracy in my past research. Ironically, I had published many articles touching on the subject, including a well-circulated piece in 2004 titled “Social Engineering for Global Change.” Yet I hadn’t realized that a specialized meta-movement existed that gave energy to the changes being described. I had chocked it up to “globalism” and “world citizenship,” which wasn’t inaccurate. But I had missed a bigger picture.

Two quotes immediately come to mind from that 2004 “Social Engineering” article.

“Fifty years is ample time in which to change a world and its people almost beyond recognition. All that is required for the task are a sound knowledge of social engineering, a clear sight of the intended goal – and power.” – Arthur C. Clarke (2).

“A world society cannot be haphazard. Since there are no precedents, it cannot be traditional at this stage in its development. It can only be deliberative and experimental, planned and built up with particular objectives and with the aid of all available knowledge concerning the principles of social organization. Social engineering is a new science.” – Scott Nearing (3).

A double irony exists, as these two quotes were the inspiration for the title of my web-based research journal, Forcing Change ( And these two quotes describe the heartbeat of Technocracy: Man’s desire to re-shape humanity in Man’s image.

So what was the “fingerprint” that caught my attention in 2009? Carbon, and a phone call.

In a report titled “Cash for Clunkers,” now published by the Science and Public Policy Institute, I had mentioned the potential for a coming global currency based on carbon credits, and quoted from the Harvard International Review.

“A new currency is emerging in world markets. Unlike the dollar, euro and yen that trade for tangible goods and human services, this new money exchanges for pollution – particularly emissions of carbon dioxide…Carbon credits, as they are called, are poised to transform the world energy system and thus the world economy.” (4)

Consider this: In 2006, the UK’s Centre for Sustainable Energy suggested citizens be granted a CO2-credit account, “based on a carbon credit card debited whenever carbon is consumed.”(5)

“Whenever carbon is consumed” translates to whenever energy is used. The implications are staggering.

And then the telephone rang.

“Carl, the idea of an energy currency isn’t new… I’ve traced it back to the 1930s, to a movement called Technocracy.” Pat Wood, a friend and research associate (, had been likewise digging into the development of a carbon economy. “During the Great Depression this group was lobbying to replace the price-based system with a new economic order. This was to be done by substituting physical money for energy certificates.”

Months before Pat had asked what I knew of Technocracy. The word had rattled around in the back of my mind in that vaguely familiar, can’t-put-my-finger-on-it kind of way, but I didn’t grasp its significance. Now I was paying attention.

Technocracy, it turned out, was far more than a science fiction plot.

Freemasonry of Science

At its core Technocracy seeks the “engineered society” – not through conventionally understood ideologies such as capitalism or socialism, but through a scientific/engineering mindset. In this sense technology plays a defining role in society, and “social engineers” wield the technical means to transform a population. From economics and industry to population size and general education, the desire of Technocracy was to remake the world in a way that exemplified “efficiency” and guaranteed social harmony.

But it would be a grave mistake and oversimplification to say that all scientists, technicians, and engineers are technocrats, a specialist who adheres to technocracy. And not every follower of technocracy is a specialist, as numerous non-technical individuals have supported the concept.

Nor would it be wise to say that technology is morally reprehensible. It can be used for good or evil. Now, technology can challenge our worldview; it can culturally redefining ideals and cherished positions. (6) This knowledge prompted Professor Neil Postman to ask,

“…to whom will the technology give greater power and freedom? And whose power and freedom will be reduced by it?” (7)

Technocracy as envisioned by the movement’s leaders in the 1930’s didn’t have a traditional political agenda. In fact, part of its sales-pitch was its disdain for governments, politicians and bankers. It wasn’t looking to form a government, it was looking to replace the entire system with the totally engineered society. This was to be called a “Technate,” and under a Technate you wouldn’t be governed, you’d be managed by “the brotherhood of efficiency, the freemasonry of science...” (8)

The term “freemasonry of science” could hardly be accidental, and indeed is pregnant with meaning. Used H.G. Wells’ movie, Things to Come, a propaganda piece that heralded a Technocratic utopia arising from the ashes of a world crisis, this phrase proclaimed that a Brotherhood would oversee the transformation of society. And in the movie, advanced technology wielded by this “Brotherhood of Efficiency” overcame those who opposed “progress.” Not unlike the Masonic Lodge with its “Brotherhood of Man,” Wells’ Brotherhood would be bound by the common goal of bettering humanity.

But the “freemasonry of science” comment is important in that it takes this ideal of human advancement to a deeper level: It expounds the science of mysticism – the perfectibility and ascendency of Man. This is evident in the symbols of the Lodge, such as the Perfect Ashlar, and is expressed in the writings of Freemasonry’s most eminent philosophers including Albert Pike, Manly P. Hall and Henry C. Clausen, who reminded his fellow travelers,

“…science and religion will be welded into a unified exponent of an overriding spiritual power… The theme in essence is that the revelations of Eastern mysticism and the discoveries of modern science support the Masonic and Scottish Rite beliefs and teachings.” (9)

“Science and philosophy, especially when linked through mysticism, have yet to conquer ignorance and superstition. Victory, however, appears on the horizon. Laboratory and library, science and philosophy…outstanding technicians and theologians are now uniting as advocates of man’s unique quality, his immortal soul and ever expanding soul.” (10)

Did H.G. Wells understand this spiritual/scientific link? Whether or not he was a Freemason is debatable, but he did have some understanding of the Lodge. (11) Moreover, he was a Fabian Socialist and a member of the Coefficients – a socialist dinner club with technocratic leanings. Wells believed that the “supreme duty” of the individual was “subordinating the personal life to the creation of a world directorate.”(12)  He envisioned a world civilization that would replace socialism and communism; “It will be more, it will be a world religion.” (13)

Putting Mr. Wells and his movie aside, the public high-point for this “freemasonry of science” took place at Columbia University in 1932 and early ’33. It was during this brief period that the Committee on Technocracy, a small group who preached the collapse of the price-based system and called for the technical ordering of North America, was legitimized by one of the most prestigious schools in the United States. Although the group’s existence in Columbia was short lived, the concept of social engineering by technical experts has since ingrained itself into academia and government. Technocracy as an ideal never died.

Today, technocratic elements are observable in the push towards global governance, in organizations such as the Club of Rome and UNESCO, in the European Union and the United Nations, and in the maze of specialized agencies that surround governments. Its heartbeat can be discovered in the eugenics and trans-humanist movement, which seeks to reshape humanity by “directing evolution.” It’s embedded in the military culture and is visible in the rise of the security state.

World order and global peace fall under its rubric, our educational system basks in it, and religious leaders and the spiritually interested paradoxically despise and embrace it.

Technocracy works within and often transcends the political structures of the day. It attached itself to the Soviet apparatus, and it worked well in the fascist culture of Nazi Germany. Although it’s more observable in totalitarian regimes, Western republics and democracies are not immune. Indeed, the Western worl d – which played the leading role in fostering the modern version – is rushing headlong towards the Technocratic vision. It’s a political chameleon because the fountain of our hearts waters its roots. We have all participated at some level: The ends justify the means, and if the means don’t exist, we’ll devise a tool that will take us to that end. Perfectibility is the goal.

What does this mean for society? Hint: think “social control” through the management of large populations. At its extreme end, Technocracy shoulders the weight of a deadly heritage, a lineage of technical proficiency – a family tree where the branches of Social Darwinism are pruned with lethal efficiency, and the poisonous fruit it produces has names like Auschwitz and Treblinka.

It is important, therefore, that we wrestle with this “freemasonry of science.” In so doing we will better grasp the words of B.F. Skinner, “We have not yet seen what man can make of man.”(14)

The Religion of Science

Technocracy in the modern sense is an idea that came to prominence during the early decades of the 20th century. A pair of little-remembered French philosophers who had a teacher-student relationship, Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-825) and Auguste Comte (1798-1857) are deserving of special attention.

Simon, a progenitor of modern socialism, (15) and Comte, the father of “Positive Philosophy” (16) are the co-founders of modern sociology. Both men envisioned a science-based “new age for mankind.” (17)

Saint-Simon believed that the “scientists and captains of industry will replace the priests and feudal lords as the natural leaders of society.” (18) Finding the idea of God defective, (19) he saw a day when science would shape and rule mankind.

“…it is obvious that when the new scientific system has been constructed, a reorganization of the religious, political, ethical, and educational systems will take place; and consequently a reorganization of the church.” (20)

Auguste Comte expanded his teacher’s worldview into an identifiable “Religion of Humanity.” Understood through the laws of science, Humanity was the “only true Great Being,” and thus Humanity should “direct every aspect of our life, individual or collective.” (21) Comte called this Positivism, and viewed it as the pinnacle stage of human development; scientific laws determine truth, therefore only a scientifically enlightened elite should guide humanity. Positivism was a “regenerating doctrine,” an “all-embracing creed” that would lead the world out of ignorance, corruption, and anarchy through a positive, scientific worldview. (22)

Building upon his theology of Man, Comte appointed himself the “High Priest of Humanity” and the “Founder of Universal Religion.” (23) In the process he created a system of rituals to mark the stages of life, “from birth to ‘incorporation’ or ‘transformation’ in the Great Being.” (24)

This included “positivist marriage ceremonies.” And foreshadowing “group therapy,” Comte devised “a system of group worship designed to reinforce social feelings…” (25)

Individualism in the “new age for mankind” would have to be replaced by a scientifically derived collectivism. Comte boiled this down to a question: “Men are not allowed to think freely about chemistry and biology, why should they think freely about political philosophy?” (26) Science would birth a political and social priesthood: a technocratic ruling class.

This notion of scientific rule in social affairs appealed to the Darwinist thinkers of the 19th century. Men like Francis Galton – the pioneer of eugenics and cousin to Charles Darwin – and Karl Pearson, the father of mathematical statistics and a promoter of eugenics, believed that the “herd” needed training. (27)

Darwinian evolution, after all, logically dictated that certain “races” and even social classes could be viewed as superior or inferior based on the science of Social Darwinism. (28) Therefore, enlightened leadership backed by the blazing “truth of science” will determine the course of human evolution. How else can we manage our upward progression?

Who should be allowed to breed and who should be sterilized? Such thinking led William Bateson, President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1914, to announce that certain types of “lower” persons shouldn’t be allowed to procreate,

“The union of such social vermin we should no more permit than we should allow parasites to breed on our own bodies.” (29)

Evolution provided a “scientific” alternative to the “myth” of Genesis, and Man could now “play God.” (30) Hence, evolutionary management through eugenics (“racial hygiene”) and “population control” found a technical justification. This was the drive for “nothing less than the scientific breeding on a universal scale of the Nietzschean superman.” (31) (Note: Fredrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher who taught the death of God and the rise of the Ubermensch – the evolved superman, or Over-man).

Underpinned by Comte’s “religion of Humanity” and Simon’s “new scientific system,” a progressive concept of elite, science-based social planning took shape: Technocracy. One prophet of this movement proclaimed that Technocracy “should in time produce a race of man superior in quality to any now known on earth.” (32)

The premise was straightforward; Science will empower humanity – “in which man may become more than man.” (33)Technology will save us from life-sapping labor, and engineers will efficiently re-build the Garden. Technocracy was and remains a modernist-type of faith with scientists and engineers acting as the new priesthood. The uncritical masses enjoy the fruits of technology while finding themselves inextricably bound to it, and in turn, genuflect to these priests. Life hangs on the sacred words of specialists. After all, who knows better then the experts?

At the contemporary level, the dogma goes like this: global resources are maxed out, the world’s environment is collapsing, and humans are to blame. But if you listen to us, the experts claim, and grant us the right to co-manage alongside enlightened political leaders, we can save the Earth.

In this pseudo-religion, green technology is married to the global economy, producing the energy of change. Your role as a world citizen will be to revolutionize your values and radically alter your lifestyle; but this is a small price to pay in the name of sustainability and progress. The solution is Technocratic: social engineers, using a systematic approach will work to transform your behavior – even what it means to be human – while new social technologies will collectivize the system.

Over and over this script is repeated to the masses, and if it’s not the environment then some other crisis is dangled as justification. Either real or perceived, the crisis demands action, and our behavior needs to be adjusted for the “sake of the planet.” In actuality it’s the advancement of the “Religion of Humanity.”

John L. Reed, a critic of the Technocratic ideal, reminds us,

“The only salvation is to design a culture in accordance with the facts uncovered by behavioral scientists. It follows as a truism that behavioral scientists should be the designers of the New Order.” (34)

B.F. Skinner, the father or behavioral psychology, a thoroughly technocratic mindset, described this scientific utopianism as “a religious movement freed of any dallying with the supernatural and inspired by a determination to build heaven on earth.” (35)

Heaven on earth? Man’s utopian dreams typically turn into bloody nightmares. And when Man declares that Man is nothing more than a biological entity that can be molded (and numbered) by the science of elite planning, then Man becomes an expendable cog in Comte’s “Great Being.”

Great Leaps and Grand Visions

Society from the 1880s to the 1940s witnessed a technical/scientific leap of mind-bending proportions. All one has to do is consider the jump from horse-and-buggy to human flight, and from coal-oil lamps to the electric light bulb. Today we’re still enamored with technology, but that earlier period had a fresh vibrancy; engineering marvels that we now take for granted were changing history.

This excitement was evident in the great World Fairs and expositions of Paris, Brussels, St. Louis and Chicago, where inventions were unveiled to the waiting eyes of the world. It was a time where science and engineering merged with the theatrical, creating a sub-culture of show inventors. These fairs provided incredible entertainment, and they fueled society with anticipation for the technically marvelous and great change. One writer, comparing the Paris fair of 1900 with the 1893 Columbian Exposition, tells us;

“In these seven years man had translated himself into a new universe which had no common scale of measurement with the old.” (36) (If only he could have seen 100 years into the future!)

Momentum for technological progress was further demonstrated through industrial research laboratories and the scores of scientific facilities that sprang into existence. Consider the following: In 1920, America had some 300 research-based science and industrial labs, by 1940 it had more than 3400. (37) Universities, governments, and bankers jumped on board, as research and development was both costly…and very lucrative.

The need for highly skilled workers grew exponentially, and a multitude of engineering and technical associations were formed during those early decades, both in the United States and abroad. Universities created specialized departments that acted as nurseries for “progressive” ideas: Science found itself married to the new concept of socialism, for this was viewed as an “engineering-scientific approach to civilization.” (38)

Equity and solidarity could be fostered and managed through a planned economy, and a planned economy meant a designed community. Finally, planning boards and advisory councils were formed, bringing an ever-widening stream of experts into the halls of government. It was the birth of a growth industry that bridged science, economics, and the weight of law. (39)

Germany, Britain, France, America and Russia (40) all witnessed this ascendency of technical influence, and each country experienced diverse outgrowths of Saint-Simon’s worldview. In the United States a new power-base emerged: philanthropic foundations.

Major tax-exempt foundations were, and still are, indispensable tools for cultural transformation, giving academic and government leaders access to vast sums of private wealth earmarked for social change. The Carnegie and Rockefeller groups, and their different agencies, are particularly noted for their work in promoting internationalism.

The 1954 Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations, along with the final Reece Committee reports, noted that these organizations have historically focused on “social engineering” and “techniques of control.” According to the Dodd Report, these groups and their social scientists tend towards the control of human behavior, international planning, centralization of power, and the substituting of individual freedom with groupthink. (41)

Both the Carnegie and Rockefeller groups came to fruition before World War I. Andrew Carnegie’s pet project, one that dovetailed with his Endowment For International Peace, was the creation of the Peace Palace at The Hague. Carnegie called it a “Holy Temple of Peace,” and the doors officially opened in August 1913. (42)

It was a grand vision, and Carnegie had grand dollars to see his Temple built. Hendrik Andersen wasn’t so fortunate. Far fewer people know of Hendrik C. Andersen, but what he proposed demonstrated the level of excitement in human advancement felt at the turn of the century. Calling for an “International Society for the Creation of a World-Centre,” Hendrik drew up plans for a global city. Gardens, towers, and temples would be built, and the world would centralize around Man’s achievements. Consider part of his plan.

“The Scientific Centre is connected with the Centres of Art and Physical Culture by the broad Avenue of Nations, flanked on either side by palaces which will house the Ambassadors and Delegates representing their respective nations. It has for its crowning motif a gigantic Tower of Progress, which rises to the height of 320 metres.

This Tower, planned on lines of practical utility is capable of providing offices for those international societies known to be beneficial to humanity and to the progress of the world. A World Press will occupy the lower floors of this colossal edifice and will serve to voice international demands… The Tower which will form the chief feature of both Centre and City was conceived as symbolic of our faith in Unity

The Tower rises in the midst of a circular space set apart for International Scientific Congress Buildings for Medicine, Surgery and Hygiene, Law and Criminology, Electricity and Invention, Agricultural and Transportation all of which are provided with halls, libraries, museums and accessory offices and are decorated with domes, towers and colonnades. To right and left an International Hall of Justices and a Temple of Religions are planned on generous lines. Completing the conception stand an International Bank or Clearing House and a World Reference Library whilst in gardens near are disposed the International Institutes of Higher Learning.”(43)

“Spiritual principles” and unity played a key role in devising this new Babylon. Here are a few excerpts from the planning document Mr. Andersen sent to world thinkers.

“…the fact that men have the power to build magnificent temples and to overthrow mountains, fills the soul with a strange pride and a secure faith that what is accomplished in a righteous cause, nothing can destroy.” (44)

“…as we are assured of the divinity of the human soul, we can survey the past with calm and serene judgment, and endeavour to strengthen the future by a deeper comprehension of the God in man and so help through unity, strength and culture, to build this ladder, as in Jacob’s dream, that reaches earth to heaven.” (45)

“Men in all parts of the earth are becoming ready for this change and look eagerly for its material manifestation. They realise that their strength can only come through world unification, peace and fellowship – a grand coalescence – a world centralization…. Such a unity all science tends to facilitate. The fearless and the pure in spirit recognise and welcome it.” (46)

Copies of this grand plan were sent around the globe and organizations like the World Peace Foundation, the International Committee of Weights and Measures, the Astronomical Society of France, and the Institute of Physics at the University of Strassburg wrote letters of commendation. So too did the United States Commissioner of Education, the President of Stanford University, and the President of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

After all, it was a new century of scientific achievement and a year of hope – 1913, the same year Carnegie’s “Holy Temple of Peace” was to open.

But in a flash everything changed. One year later the world started to slaughter itself in ways never before imagined.

The Great Technological War

It’s hard for us, almost one hundred years after the fact, to comprehend the cultural shock that came with the Great War – better known to us as World War I. Science and technology had promised a horn of plenty and human unity, yet it unleashed indescribable horrors.

In August 1914 the might of modern industry, science, and engineering baptized Europe in fire, steel, and blood. In terrible irony the opening battles witnessed French infantrymen marching across fields in “blue breaches and red coats,” and artillery officers in bold black and gold dress (47) – throwbacks to a Napoleonic age. The Great War for the French (and others) started with its foot in the romantic past. But this was the era of science and mechanization; World War I was the first engineered slaughterhouse....

Note from Berit: May I suggest you subscribe to this great online magazine and read the rest. This vital information will help us prepare for the  challenges we will be facing in the years ahead. 

Carl Teichrib is editor of Forcing Change (

Part 2 will appear in an upcoming issue.

Carl Teichrib is editor of Forcing Change, a monthly online publication detailing the changes and challenges impacting the Western world.

Benefits of Forcing Change membership...

  • Access to every issue of Forcing Change, our fully documented monthly publication.
  • Membership-only admittance to a large assortment of source documents, including many rare items, all in downloadable PDF.
  • Access to specialized e-reports such as The Power Puzzle: A Compilation of Documents on Global Governance.
  • Direct access to media files, reading lists, audio features, and more!

Membership in Forcing Change allows access to the full range of FC publications, including e-reports, audio and media presentations, Forcing Change back issues, downloadable expert documents, and more. FC receives neither government funding nor the financial backing of any other institutions; rather, Forcing Change operates solely on subscription/membership support. To learn more about Forcing Change, including membership benefits, go to

Forcing Change

P.O. Box 31

Plumas, Manitoba, Canada


For publications: Permission to re-publish articles found in Forcing Change is granted, providing that FC credit is acknowledged (preferably with the Forcing Change URL attached), and that Forcing Change is notified of the public article use.


1. Graham A. Laing, Towards Technocracy (The Angelus Press, 1933), p.46.

2. Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood’s End (Ballantine Books, 1953), p.69.

3. Scott Nearing, United World (Island Press, 1944), p.221.

4. David F. Victor and Joshua C. House, “A New Currency: Climate Change and Carbon Credits,” Harvard

International Review, Summer 2004, p.56.

5. A Rough Guide to Individual Carbon Trading (Centre for Sustainable Energy, November 2006), p.13.

6. A very interesting book on technology’s role in cultural change is Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture

to Technology, by Neil Postman (Vintage, 1993).

7. Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (Vintage, 1993), p.11.

8. From the 1936 movie, Things To Come.

9. Henry C. Clausen, Emergence of the Mystical (Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry,

1981), p.xi.

10. Henry C. Clausen, Emergence of the Mystical, p.92.

11. See the H.G. Wells’ listing in the webpage for the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon


12. H.G. Wells, The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution (Doubleday, Doran and Company,

1928), p.143.

13. Wells, The Open Conspiracy, p.163.

14. As quoted in Vance Packard’s book, The People Shapers (Little, Brown and Company, 1977), p.3.

Forcing Change, Volume 4, Issue 7

July 2010


15. Dante Germino, Machiavelli to Marx: Modern Western Political Thought (University of Chicago

Press, 1972), p.273.

16. “Auguste Comte,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

17. Dante Germino, Machiavelli to Marx, p.273.

18. Felix Markham, introduction to Henri de Saint-Simon’s collection, Social Organization, The Science

of Man, and Other Writings (Harper, 1952), p.xxi.

19. Henri de Saint-Simon, “Introduction to the Scientific Studies of the 19th Century,” Social Organization,

The Science of Man and Other Writings (Harper, 1952), p.20.

20. Henri de Saint-Simon, “Essay on the Science of Man,” Social Organization, The Science of Man and

Other Writings (Harper, 1952), p.21.

21. Dante Germino, Machiavelli to Marx, p.296.

22. Dante Germino, Machiavelli to Marx, p.290.

23. Dante Germino, Machiavelli to Marx, p.289.

24. Dante Germino, Machiavelli to Marx, p.296.

25. Dante Germino, Machiavelli to Marx, p.296.

26. W.H.G. Armytage, The Rise of the Technocrats: A Social History (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965),


27. W.H.G. Armytage, The Rise of the Technocrats: A Social History, p.120.

28. For a Christian perspective, see Ken Ham and A. Charles Ware, Darwin’s Plantation: Evolution’s Racist

Roots (Master Books, 2007). An older text worth perusing is Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in

American Thought (George Braziller, 1959). See also, Edwin Black, War Against The Weak (Four Walls

Eight Windows, 2003), and page 208 of Ronald W. Clark’s book, The Survival of Charles Darwin: A Biography

of a Man and an Idea (Random House, 1984). Finally, Benjamin Kidd discusses class and evolution

in his book, The Science of Power (Methuen, 1918/1919).

29. Quoted by Benjamin Kidd, The Science of Power (Methuen, 1918/1919), p.92.

30. A number of important books on the subject of eugenics have been published. I would suggest Edwin

Black’s War Against the Weak (Four Walls Eight Windows Publishing, 2003) for its thoroughness in regards

to American and Germanic eugenics.

31. Benjamin Kidd, The Science of Power (Methuen, 1918/19), pp.73-74.

32. Harold Loeb, Life In A Technocracy: What It Might Be Like (Syracuse University, 1933/1996), p.178.

33. Harold Loeb, Life In A Technocracy, p.174.

34. John L. Reed, The Newest Whore of Babylon: The Emergence of Technocracy – A Study in the

Mechanization of Man (Branden Press, 1975), p.120.

35. B.F. Skinner, Walden Two (Macmillan, 1968 paperback edition), p.308.

36. David Lindsay, Madness in the Making: The Triumphant Rise and Untimely Fall of America’s Show

Inventors (Kodansha, 1997), p.269.

37. W.H.G. Armytage, The Rise of the Technocrats: A Social History, p.246.

38.W.H.G. Armytage, The Rise of the Technocrats, p.249. See also pages 120-121.

39. For a detailed exploration of these events, see Armytage, The Rise of the Technocrats: A Social History,


40. See, Don K. Rowney, Transition to Technocracy: The Structural Origins of the Soviet Administrative

State (Cornell University Press, 1989). See also, W.H.G. Armytage, The Rise of the Technocrats: A Social


41. Norman Dodd, The Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations, 1954. This short report can

be read over a cup of coffee, however, the Reece Committee hearings and final reports are very substantial

documents, exploring in detail the rise and influence of foundations as agents for international and

domestic social transformation.

42. Robert M. Gates, as explained in a speech he gave to the Carnegie Endowment for International

Peace, Washington D.C, October 28, 2008.

43. Hendrik C. Andersen, World-Conscience: An International Society for the Creation of a World-Centre

(1913), p.4.

Forcing Change, Volume 4, Issue 7

July 2010


44. Andersen, World-Conscience: An International Society

for the Creation of a World-Centre, p.8

45. Andersen, World-Conscience: An International Society

for the Creation of a World-Centre, p.11.

46. Andersen, World-Conscience: An International Society

for the Creation of a World-Centre, p.11.

55. Benjamin Kidd, The Science of Power, p.12.

56. Kidd, The Science of Power, p.9.

Index to previous articles by Carl Teichrib