Mattias Desmet’s article raises thought-provoking questions about politics, technology, and the human condition, but his argument is not without its fractures. His portrayal of political parties, for instance, feels more like a caricature: the Democrats are painted as technocratic and hypocritical, while Trump and the Republicans are cast as near-salvific figures. Although Desmet acknowledges flaws on both sides, his analysis often oversimplifies. For example, attributing Kamala Harris’s electoral defeat solely to a rejection of globalist hypocrisy overlooks broader factors such as demographic shifts, policy issues, and the role of the media. Moreover, his enthusiasm for Trump as a disruptive force seems oblivious to the inconsistencies and opportunism that have marked Trump’s political career.
When it comes to technology, Desmet strikes an alarmist tone, warning of the dangers of technological control and digitization. However, his perspective often feels trapped in pessimism. He largely ignores the potential benefits of technology, such as advancements in healthcare or solutions to climate change. His critique of projects like Neuralink and self-driving cars reads more like a principled rejection than a nuanced assessment of their ethical possibilities. Rather than viewing technology as an ambivalent tool, Desmet appears to frame it as inherently antagonistic to the human spirit.
One particularly striking choice is Desmet’s comparison of Trump to figures like Mussolini and Hitler. While he seems to use this analogy to caution against the perils of authoritarian leadership, he simultaneously hints at a vague hope that Trump might achieve some form of “enlightenment.” This parallel is not only questionable but also dangerous, as it risks downplaying the truly destructive power of historical dictatorships. At the same time, his call for a more human-centric worldview, rooted in ethics and connectedness, remains abstract. How do these principles translate into practical solutions for pressing issues like climate policy or globalization?
Desmet places the concept of “truth” at the center of his argument, presenting Trump as someone who exposes illusions. This raises significant concerns: can someone with a track record of deceit and manipulation truly be considered a bearer of truth? From a Lacanian perspective—which Desmet himself references—truth is never absolute but always intertwined with context and symbolism. Trump’s actions seem to operate more within the relm of the imanginary in a media-driven spectacle than as an attempt to confront hard realities.
Lacanian thinkers would likely argue that the real crisis cannot be resolved by glorifying leaders who supposedly reveal the “Real.” The Holocaust revealed the Real. Is that what we desire?
Instead, Lacanians would advocate for a deeper re-evaluation of our relationship with power, desire, and the structures that shape our lives. The focus should not be on figures like Trump or Musk but on recognizing our own complicity in the challenges Desmet describes.
While Desmet’s article poses compelling questions, it ultimately falls short due to its one-sidedness and speculative nature. His faith in disruptive figures like Trump and Musk seems driven more by hope than by a realistic appraisal of their impact. The real challenge lies not in seeking saviors but in building an ethical foundation that embraces collaboration and nuance.
In Psychology of totalitarianism, we are warned for the risk of Big Leaders, now we see Desmet wishing for such leaders himself. I have always been of the opinion Desmet belongs to the far-right side, and although he preaches love and understanding, he's secretly wishing for agressive thing such as an apocalypse "that will change everything" and now he proves this point again. This decret agression is the Real behind the hypocrysy of his imaginary love-spreading. Or he is naive in his hope politicians will learn from history...Anyway, since he's hugging with the people who might eventually bring totalitarianism upon us, he's just a shill.
The professor steadily returns to his inherent methodological approach – dialectical idealism. Hope he can maintain his moral stance regarding analysis of social issues where dialectical materialism prevails. So far this has been too much of a challenge for the professor.
Why don’t we study the euro of Aurobindo the Indian yogi and worker on consciousness together with his partner the Mother, as our consciousness needs to see the limits of our current being aware of our real needs and potential. They called this the Supra mental part of our soul.
This goes farther than brain chips. You can’t solve problems by using the methods that created them. It’s the limits in our view and awareness of our selves that creates the issues you mention. So let’s start getting to know our selves: how we react out of pain instead of compassion. And then see the options we have to develop further than that. Their work is accessible on the web. Enjoy! And practice
"there is an irresolvable tension between science, in its old or its new sense, and politics, and that any attempt to resolve the tension is likely to have terrible consequences in the political world; that the political world must be ruled not by science but by prudence. This requires at a minimum the recognition that there will always be a "gap" between theory and practice, and that the recalcitrant or intractable political problems cannot be wholly resolved-at least, not by a government of free men."
You're probably familiar with the work of legal philosopher Frederick K Beutel. The following is a piece *about* one of Beutel's works written by another legal philosopher Walter Berns. Beutel's book proposed science-based law and jurisprudence. Behavioral Science. Aka The Science (TM) of the pandemic. The Science (TM) that all of the world's leaders, on the right and left have told us we must follow. In the piece below Berns deconstructs many of the presumptions and assumptions about governing men that Beutel makes. Beutel's work and Berns' deconstruction of it highlight the topic your address in this Stack. As these legal philosopher's saw the progress of man, the technocratic impulses of chasing efficiency and turning to science to perfect our society.
Law and Behavioral Science
Walter Berns
Law and Contemporary Problems (Duke Law School), Winter, 1963
[The first 14 pages get into a game theory type application of behavioral sciences on judicial philosophy. The final 14 pages are very informative and cautionary of governance by science.]
"Man, he says, has achieved power over nature but not over himself; the "philosophy of social control" has not kept pace with "the revolutionary developments of physical science," which has engendered grave "mental, political and social maladjustments." This disproportion is largely the responsibility of "obsolescent practices," a reliance "upon ancient theories, institutions and dogmas about the nature of man fomented by clerics and philosophers [such as] the Bible, Aristotle, Plato, Adam Smith, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Montesquieu, Bentham, Blackstone and Marx." One such theory, or "fomented" theory, is the idea that man is not a part of nature in the same way that animals and inanimate objects are. "Most advanced thinkers [however] have now come to the conclusion that man in his most intricate aspects is as much a part of the universe as is an animal or a stone.... " Being wholly in and of nature, man is as controllable as other animals and matter, and the means of effecting this control is experimental jurisprudence. "Nobody should be prepared to argue that the solution of all moral, social and international problems is presently possible by the technique of Experimental Jurisprudence, but can it not be said that it is foreseeable that the ultimate projection of procedures here suggested may lead to a possible means of resolution of clashes of opinion which in the past have been settled by brute force?"
...
Beutel tells us.:
"Looking far into the future, it may be predicted that the methods of legally directed thought control may eventually take over the direction and control of what some now call human values and that this power may be turned to scientific purposes. If this is to be accomplished, it should be along the lines of Experimental Jurisprudence. When this is done, there will no longer be any basis for the belief that social science is impossible because it contains no elements of control such as those found in physical sciences. The means of social control by law are now developing and increasing all about us. Mankind may soon be required to make the choice whether these powers are to be exercised for greed, lust and caprice of individuals or are to be used in the scientific advancement of the race."
Beutel is not altogether clear as to what he means by the "scientific advancement of the race," and the laws appropriate to this advancement; but he does have a test, of sorts, of good laws.:
"The laws to be enacted or recommended should be those which lead to the greatest sum total of satisfaction of needs, demands and desires, in that order of rank. Thus a more complicated person is certain to have greater wants than a simple individual, and his combined interests as a whole will therefore weigh heavier in the scientific scale than those of a less complicated (less intelligent, if you will) individual."
But supposing the "less complicated" people object to this dispensation?:
"If ... sufficient public interest is to be developed in adopting new scientific methods, it will be necessary for this small [at most "six percent of the entire population"] nucleus from which come the able scientists to convince the great majority to agree to types of governmental and legal devices which the overwhelming mass of people cannot even understand. Under the circumstances, the development of popular pressure for adoption of scientific discoveries into the legal and governmental field sufficient to overcome the inertia of those in control of the machinery is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve."
That the scientists should be restrained by the need to get the consent of the ("less complicated") governed is reassuring, but perhaps only temporarily, since we know that this restraint does not derive from any principle to be found in the book. The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed," but Beutel dismisses its "theories" as mere "fictions," even more "advanced in the realm of fiction" than the notion of the "divine right of kings.' Never lacking in boldness, he goes right on to state his lack of interest in any of these "theories":
"The experimental jurist as such has little interest in the general theories advanced to explain the purposes of government as a whole or to justify certain lines of policy. As a scientist he must recognize that these expressions are largely fictional. While he might possibly desire to examine the factual effectiveness of various devices used to disseminate these fictions in persuading the public to submit to the general policies of a particular government, his immediate attention preferably would be directed toward the effect of a particular law in accomplishing the real purpose for which it was created."
...
Rule by experimental jurisprudence is not imminent, and there would seem to be little danger of its ever coming about, at least in all its manifestations. Nevertheless, what this book represents must be taken seriously: an impatience with the "unscientific" aspects of democratic government.
...
Doubtless there have been "phenomenal technical and scientific" advances during the past century, as Beutel says, and that there is a "social lag"; and perhaps it is true that the "general science and art of lawmaking" has not developed "since the days of the Roman Empire"; but this is no reason for law to imitate physics or engineering. On the contrary, a grasp of the fundamental problems might reveal that there is an irresolvable tension between science, in its old or its new sense, and politics, and that any attempt to resolve the tension is likely to have terrible consequences in the political world; that the political world must be ruled not by science but by prudence. This requires at a minimum the recognition that there will always be a "gap" between theory and practice, and that the recalcitrant or intractable political problems cannot be wholly resolved-at least, not by a government of free men. True, Socrates said that "cities will never have rest from their evils--no, nor the human race ... until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy"; but Socrates, who failed even in his attempt to rule his wife, Xanthippe, knew and taught that it is extremely unlikely that the conditions required for the rule of the wise will ever be met. As Leo Strauss has said:
"What is more likely to happen is that an unwise man, appealing to the natural right of wisdom [to rule] and catering to the lowest desires of the many, will persuade the multitude of his right: the prospects for tyranny are brighter than those for rule of the wise. This being the case, the natural right of the wise must be questioned, and the indispensable requirement for wisdom must be qualified by the requirement for consent. The political problem consists in reconciling the requirement for wisdom with the requirement for consent."
Legal scholars, and even practicing lawyers, know these exceedingly important things; they therefore have more to teach to the new scientists than the new scientists have to teach them."
I'll pull a few of the more prescient passages out:
"Beutel tells us.: "Looking far into the future, it may be predicted that the methods of legally directed thought control may eventually take over the direction and control of what some now call human values and that this power may be turned to scientific purposes. If this is to be accomplished, it should be along the lines of Experimental Jurisprudence. [FF - Behavioral science-based propaganda and censorship so government can control the "cognitive infrastructure" of the nation]
"Mankind may soon be required to make the choice whether these powers are to be exercised for greed, lust and caprice of individuals or are to be used in the scientific advancement of the race." Beutel is not altogether clear as to what he means by the "scientific advancement of the race" [FF- Eugenics!]
"The laws to be enacted or recommended should be those which lead to the greatest sum total of satisfaction of needs, demands and desires, in that order of rank. Thus a more complicated person is certain to have greater wants than a simple individual, and his combined interests as a whole will therefore weigh heavier in the scientific scale than those of a less complicated (less intelligent, if you will) individual." [FF - You will own nothing and eat bugs in your 15-minute cities. We will own it all and eat caviar, veal and filet mignon.]
"Nevertheless, what this book represents must be taken seriously: an impatience with the "unscientific" aspects of democratic government" [FF - government by the people is so messy and inefficient!]
FF - It's all about efficiency, you see! On that note, here's a newspaper snippet from the same era that is instructive for what the highly educated nitwits inventing/following The Science (TM) believe:
‘Damned Efficient Slavery’ vs. ‘Inefficient Freedom’
"Sir David, member of the British cabinet, addressed members of the British-American Chamber of Commerce and Trade Centre, the San Francisco World Trade Association and the World Affairs Council of Northern California.
Because the Soviets mobilize and direct all their economic resources from one centre, he said, they have a great advantage.
“Vice-President Nixon called the Russian system slavery. All right, slavery it is. But damned efficient slavery."..."“We cherish our freedom. All right, freedom it is, but sadly inefficient freedom.”"
Another good article to become familiar with is from 1941, pre-dawn for the US entry into WWII. It cautions from the last century that apply to this one. If the Musk's and technocratic oligarchs now fully insinuated into Trump's inner circle singing odes to The Science (TM) as siren songs to Trump we can only pray the wisdom imparted in this piece finds its way into Trump's inner circle, as well. Doubtful the gatekeepers would ever pass it through. And doubtful that Trump's own curiosity would lead him to it on his own. But it's a must-read. At least for the rest of us and other aspiring leaders.
Science in the Totalitarian State
Foreign Affairs [the magazine of the Council on Foreign Relations], January, 1941
[suggest reading entire piece, it's worth it, below is excerpted from end]
"Often enough we hear it said that mechanical invention has outstripped social invention -- that new social forms must be devised if we are to forestall the economic crises that are brought about by what is called the "impact of science" on society. Communism and Fascism are social inventions, intended among other things to solve the economic problems created by technological change under the influence of capitalism. They attempt to answer a question: Are the technical experts and their financial backers to shape the course of society unrestrained, and even to rule nations directly and indirectly, as they did in France, and as they do in part in Great Britain and the United States? The totalitarians say that a capitalistic democratic government cannot control the experts, the inventors, the creators of this evolving mechanical culture. They therefore have decided to take control of thinking, above all scientific thinking, out of which flow the manufacturing processes and the machines which change life."
...
"Democracy flounders before it arrives at satisfactory solutions of its social problems. But it is better to flounder and progress than to follow the philosophy of a dictator and to remain socially and scientifically static."
...
"What is likely to happen to science if totalitarianism prevails is revealed by the course of Egyptian art. In its earliest phases that art was fairly free; hence there was much experimenting, much striving for realistic modes of expression. When the priests took control of Egyptian life a dramatic change occurred. The ways of portraying the human being became stylized. For centuries the style hardly changed. Art had been frozen. And so must it be with research. There can be science and engineering under dictation; but it will be stylized science, engineering which does not progress."
A good article, as far as it goes. But the real power, and therefore the potential for real societal change, rests with the money, banks, CBs, and Treasury departments. If nothing changes in that arena, comme ci comme ça.
In any case, the bankers did succeed in their incitement to violence, and the Civil War was unleashed on the US, with the London bankers backing the Union and the French bankers backing the South. Everyone made a fortune and by 1861 the US was $100 million in debt. At this time, Abraham Lincoln became the new President and snubbed the bankers by issuing US government currency popularly known as Greenbacks to pay Union Army bills without incurring debt to the Rothschilds. At the time, the Rothschild-controlled Times of London wrote:
“If that mischievous policy, which had its origins in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”
Thinking in a non rationalistic way is experiencing that comprehensibility can happen without going through the intellect, and manifest in a strong emotion instead. And comprehensibility can imply having a correct sense of a future dramatic event. You are perfectly right in combatting the rationalistic and mechanistic ways of operating that defines our world, Mattias, and your understanding shows that you’ve had some unique human experiences, as I did too so far. And you must have a tremendously gifted life to have such faith. For my part, full of my loving soul, I am incredibly unsuccessful, isolated and alone. I cannot buy that I can be my own source of regeneration. I need to be loved and acknowledged, like all of us. Not to fall in despair and inanition is the great challenge. The cardinal virtues that the Greek helds in high esteem were virtues especially because they could be seen and aknowlewdge by their peers. It is not the case anymore. At least not in my world. Nobody will find the words to say something deep and inspiring at my funerals. Reading you makes me feel less alone even though the highly probable fact that we will never meet also adds to my sadness.
Excellent articulation of my reasons for voting for Team Trump and the concerns I have as well. We need the heart, soul, emotional maturity and wisdom of people like RFK Jr, Jay Bhattacharya, Bret Weinstein, Midwestern Doctor, etc, as well as our own grounded, heart-centered judgment and skepticism as agendas roll out to ensure buddies Trump and Musk don’t take the transhumanist turn we fear they could.
But, the Pennsylvania Trump assassination attempt was clearly a fake Deep State operation designed to catapult Trump to the Presidency with Peter Thiel's pawn JD Vance as VP. Thiel is on the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group.
Yeah, yeah. Even so, Trump is a relief from the utter Communist DEM / LEFT. No doubt we will see Trump further promote North American Union with Canada and digital IDs to "fight illegal immigration." North American Union means the death of the US Constitution, the most perfect arrangement yet devised for individual freedom.
Maybe, at least, Trump can snuff "Climate Change" nonsense!?? And North American Union can be stalled? Oh, if only the Bricker Amendment had been passed in the 1950s so Treaties wouldn't TRUMP the Constitution!
Beware Elon Musk and His Attempts to Steer the World Toward the Neo-Fascist Right.
It will not be the first time in history that someone is seduced by the thrill of unconstrained power, although it may be the first time that so much of it is concentrated in one unelected megalomaniac.
This combination—the richest person in the world, owner and manipulator of the biggest political messaging platform in the world, with direct influence over Trump—puts Musk in the position of being able to move other nations toward the neo-fascist right.
Never did a politician learn from History. And never the politicians were more simply puppets and artificial figures to make us identify with than nowadays. Democrats Republicans all the same smeary stuff. In times when every single event ist manipulated and framed for political purposes, as even the Trump assassination clearly was, the elaborate thoughts you Invest are vanishing into dust.
So what about the Greenland grip of Trump? Canada as part of the US? This ist more than dangerous and hazardous.
This ist quite aggressive... or long planned. Nothing of this was ever mentioned during the election campaign. None. And the good Guys like RFK perhaps made a serious mistake to trust the Siren's Song and follow the Sonnyboys Elon and Donald.
Most clarifying and astute essay Matthias- thankyou. You raised questions that we would all do well to consider carefully. It is quite a dangerous time in history when many, myself included, are feeling victorious. Let us be mindful that what has occurred is simply a regime change. Our new rulers of the so called "free world" must not be given free range to impose their own decidedly questionable ideological solutions onto humanity. As you pointed out transhumanism isn't an option for a better world. Qualities like love kindness and compassion emanate from within, without them, unfortunately, these ambitions will be left unabated. Thanks again for your words of caution and imploring us all to dig deeper and most importantly to keep our new leaders accountable.
You have a wonderful way of bringing a sensitive and thoughtful perspective to the politics of the day. While many are looking for a quick fix for the pickle we are in, you want to bring understanding at a deeper level of what has gone wrong.
In your assessment you are correct in pointing to the mechanistic worldview as the underlying basis for a technocratic world. A world where physics ultimately explains everything leaves no place for the very things that humanity values the most.
(the soul, love, truth, joy, peace, courage, purpose, good as opposed to evil, communion with the other)
The assumption is that you hold an another world view that provides a basis for better way to live. Although you advocate for truth speaking you have not yet articulated the better worldview that your writing assumes. Do you intend (for example) that Elon ought to put great value on the soul with no basis for the existence of the soul or its value?
Robust values to be passed on within families and communities or even nations will require a basis in reality. At the right time I hope for you to be able to speak of that.
I hope that Trump and Musk will prove to be the “saviors” they appear to be. We must remember they are not working in a vacuum. There are other strong men and women who believe in what the agenda is that will also direct what is going to happen. RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, JDVance and Vivek Ramaswamy are strong and focused individuals. I’m betting on all of them.
Mattias Desmet’s article raises thought-provoking questions about politics, technology, and the human condition, but his argument is not without its fractures. His portrayal of political parties, for instance, feels more like a caricature: the Democrats are painted as technocratic and hypocritical, while Trump and the Republicans are cast as near-salvific figures. Although Desmet acknowledges flaws on both sides, his analysis often oversimplifies. For example, attributing Kamala Harris’s electoral defeat solely to a rejection of globalist hypocrisy overlooks broader factors such as demographic shifts, policy issues, and the role of the media. Moreover, his enthusiasm for Trump as a disruptive force seems oblivious to the inconsistencies and opportunism that have marked Trump’s political career.
When it comes to technology, Desmet strikes an alarmist tone, warning of the dangers of technological control and digitization. However, his perspective often feels trapped in pessimism. He largely ignores the potential benefits of technology, such as advancements in healthcare or solutions to climate change. His critique of projects like Neuralink and self-driving cars reads more like a principled rejection than a nuanced assessment of their ethical possibilities. Rather than viewing technology as an ambivalent tool, Desmet appears to frame it as inherently antagonistic to the human spirit.
One particularly striking choice is Desmet’s comparison of Trump to figures like Mussolini and Hitler. While he seems to use this analogy to caution against the perils of authoritarian leadership, he simultaneously hints at a vague hope that Trump might achieve some form of “enlightenment.” This parallel is not only questionable but also dangerous, as it risks downplaying the truly destructive power of historical dictatorships. At the same time, his call for a more human-centric worldview, rooted in ethics and connectedness, remains abstract. How do these principles translate into practical solutions for pressing issues like climate policy or globalization?
Desmet places the concept of “truth” at the center of his argument, presenting Trump as someone who exposes illusions. This raises significant concerns: can someone with a track record of deceit and manipulation truly be considered a bearer of truth? From a Lacanian perspective—which Desmet himself references—truth is never absolute but always intertwined with context and symbolism. Trump’s actions seem to operate more within the relm of the imanginary in a media-driven spectacle than as an attempt to confront hard realities.
Lacanian thinkers would likely argue that the real crisis cannot be resolved by glorifying leaders who supposedly reveal the “Real.” The Holocaust revealed the Real. Is that what we desire?
Instead, Lacanians would advocate for a deeper re-evaluation of our relationship with power, desire, and the structures that shape our lives. The focus should not be on figures like Trump or Musk but on recognizing our own complicity in the challenges Desmet describes.
While Desmet’s article poses compelling questions, it ultimately falls short due to its one-sidedness and speculative nature. His faith in disruptive figures like Trump and Musk seems driven more by hope than by a realistic appraisal of their impact. The real challenge lies not in seeking saviors but in building an ethical foundation that embraces collaboration and nuance.
In Psychology of totalitarianism, we are warned for the risk of Big Leaders, now we see Desmet wishing for such leaders himself. I have always been of the opinion Desmet belongs to the far-right side, and although he preaches love and understanding, he's secretly wishing for agressive thing such as an apocalypse "that will change everything" and now he proves this point again. This decret agression is the Real behind the hypocrysy of his imaginary love-spreading. Or he is naive in his hope politicians will learn from history...Anyway, since he's hugging with the people who might eventually bring totalitarianism upon us, he's just a shill.
The professor steadily returns to his inherent methodological approach – dialectical idealism. Hope he can maintain his moral stance regarding analysis of social issues where dialectical materialism prevails. So far this has been too much of a challenge for the professor.
Why don’t we study the euro of Aurobindo the Indian yogi and worker on consciousness together with his partner the Mother, as our consciousness needs to see the limits of our current being aware of our real needs and potential. They called this the Supra mental part of our soul.
This goes farther than brain chips. You can’t solve problems by using the methods that created them. It’s the limits in our view and awareness of our selves that creates the issues you mention. So let’s start getting to know our selves: how we react out of pain instead of compassion. And then see the options we have to develop further than that. Their work is accessible on the web. Enjoy! And practice
"there is an irresolvable tension between science, in its old or its new sense, and politics, and that any attempt to resolve the tension is likely to have terrible consequences in the political world; that the political world must be ruled not by science but by prudence. This requires at a minimum the recognition that there will always be a "gap" between theory and practice, and that the recalcitrant or intractable political problems cannot be wholly resolved-at least, not by a government of free men."
You're probably familiar with the work of legal philosopher Frederick K Beutel. The following is a piece *about* one of Beutel's works written by another legal philosopher Walter Berns. Beutel's book proposed science-based law and jurisprudence. Behavioral Science. Aka The Science (TM) of the pandemic. The Science (TM) that all of the world's leaders, on the right and left have told us we must follow. In the piece below Berns deconstructs many of the presumptions and assumptions about governing men that Beutel makes. Beutel's work and Berns' deconstruction of it highlight the topic your address in this Stack. As these legal philosopher's saw the progress of man, the technocratic impulses of chasing efficiency and turning to science to perfect our society.
Law and Behavioral Science
Walter Berns
Law and Contemporary Problems (Duke Law School), Winter, 1963
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2953&context=lcp
[The first 14 pages get into a game theory type application of behavioral sciences on judicial philosophy. The final 14 pages are very informative and cautionary of governance by science.]
"Man, he says, has achieved power over nature but not over himself; the "philosophy of social control" has not kept pace with "the revolutionary developments of physical science," which has engendered grave "mental, political and social maladjustments." This disproportion is largely the responsibility of "obsolescent practices," a reliance "upon ancient theories, institutions and dogmas about the nature of man fomented by clerics and philosophers [such as] the Bible, Aristotle, Plato, Adam Smith, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Montesquieu, Bentham, Blackstone and Marx." One such theory, or "fomented" theory, is the idea that man is not a part of nature in the same way that animals and inanimate objects are. "Most advanced thinkers [however] have now come to the conclusion that man in his most intricate aspects is as much a part of the universe as is an animal or a stone.... " Being wholly in and of nature, man is as controllable as other animals and matter, and the means of effecting this control is experimental jurisprudence. "Nobody should be prepared to argue that the solution of all moral, social and international problems is presently possible by the technique of Experimental Jurisprudence, but can it not be said that it is foreseeable that the ultimate projection of procedures here suggested may lead to a possible means of resolution of clashes of opinion which in the past have been settled by brute force?"
...
Beutel tells us.:
"Looking far into the future, it may be predicted that the methods of legally directed thought control may eventually take over the direction and control of what some now call human values and that this power may be turned to scientific purposes. If this is to be accomplished, it should be along the lines of Experimental Jurisprudence. When this is done, there will no longer be any basis for the belief that social science is impossible because it contains no elements of control such as those found in physical sciences. The means of social control by law are now developing and increasing all about us. Mankind may soon be required to make the choice whether these powers are to be exercised for greed, lust and caprice of individuals or are to be used in the scientific advancement of the race."
Beutel is not altogether clear as to what he means by the "scientific advancement of the race," and the laws appropriate to this advancement; but he does have a test, of sorts, of good laws.:
"The laws to be enacted or recommended should be those which lead to the greatest sum total of satisfaction of needs, demands and desires, in that order of rank. Thus a more complicated person is certain to have greater wants than a simple individual, and his combined interests as a whole will therefore weigh heavier in the scientific scale than those of a less complicated (less intelligent, if you will) individual."
But supposing the "less complicated" people object to this dispensation?:
"If ... sufficient public interest is to be developed in adopting new scientific methods, it will be necessary for this small [at most "six percent of the entire population"] nucleus from which come the able scientists to convince the great majority to agree to types of governmental and legal devices which the overwhelming mass of people cannot even understand. Under the circumstances, the development of popular pressure for adoption of scientific discoveries into the legal and governmental field sufficient to overcome the inertia of those in control of the machinery is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve."
That the scientists should be restrained by the need to get the consent of the ("less complicated") governed is reassuring, but perhaps only temporarily, since we know that this restraint does not derive from any principle to be found in the book. The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed," but Beutel dismisses its "theories" as mere "fictions," even more "advanced in the realm of fiction" than the notion of the "divine right of kings.' Never lacking in boldness, he goes right on to state his lack of interest in any of these "theories":
"The experimental jurist as such has little interest in the general theories advanced to explain the purposes of government as a whole or to justify certain lines of policy. As a scientist he must recognize that these expressions are largely fictional. While he might possibly desire to examine the factual effectiveness of various devices used to disseminate these fictions in persuading the public to submit to the general policies of a particular government, his immediate attention preferably would be directed toward the effect of a particular law in accomplishing the real purpose for which it was created."
...
Rule by experimental jurisprudence is not imminent, and there would seem to be little danger of its ever coming about, at least in all its manifestations. Nevertheless, what this book represents must be taken seriously: an impatience with the "unscientific" aspects of democratic government.
...
Doubtless there have been "phenomenal technical and scientific" advances during the past century, as Beutel says, and that there is a "social lag"; and perhaps it is true that the "general science and art of lawmaking" has not developed "since the days of the Roman Empire"; but this is no reason for law to imitate physics or engineering. On the contrary, a grasp of the fundamental problems might reveal that there is an irresolvable tension between science, in its old or its new sense, and politics, and that any attempt to resolve the tension is likely to have terrible consequences in the political world; that the political world must be ruled not by science but by prudence. This requires at a minimum the recognition that there will always be a "gap" between theory and practice, and that the recalcitrant or intractable political problems cannot be wholly resolved-at least, not by a government of free men. True, Socrates said that "cities will never have rest from their evils--no, nor the human race ... until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy"; but Socrates, who failed even in his attempt to rule his wife, Xanthippe, knew and taught that it is extremely unlikely that the conditions required for the rule of the wise will ever be met. As Leo Strauss has said:
"What is more likely to happen is that an unwise man, appealing to the natural right of wisdom [to rule] and catering to the lowest desires of the many, will persuade the multitude of his right: the prospects for tyranny are brighter than those for rule of the wise. This being the case, the natural right of the wise must be questioned, and the indispensable requirement for wisdom must be qualified by the requirement for consent. The political problem consists in reconciling the requirement for wisdom with the requirement for consent."
Legal scholars, and even practicing lawyers, know these exceedingly important things; they therefore have more to teach to the new scientists than the new scientists have to teach them."
I'll pull a few of the more prescient passages out:
"Beutel tells us.: "Looking far into the future, it may be predicted that the methods of legally directed thought control may eventually take over the direction and control of what some now call human values and that this power may be turned to scientific purposes. If this is to be accomplished, it should be along the lines of Experimental Jurisprudence. [FF - Behavioral science-based propaganda and censorship so government can control the "cognitive infrastructure" of the nation]
"Mankind may soon be required to make the choice whether these powers are to be exercised for greed, lust and caprice of individuals or are to be used in the scientific advancement of the race." Beutel is not altogether clear as to what he means by the "scientific advancement of the race" [FF- Eugenics!]
"The laws to be enacted or recommended should be those which lead to the greatest sum total of satisfaction of needs, demands and desires, in that order of rank. Thus a more complicated person is certain to have greater wants than a simple individual, and his combined interests as a whole will therefore weigh heavier in the scientific scale than those of a less complicated (less intelligent, if you will) individual." [FF - You will own nothing and eat bugs in your 15-minute cities. We will own it all and eat caviar, veal and filet mignon.]
"Nevertheless, what this book represents must be taken seriously: an impatience with the "unscientific" aspects of democratic government" [FF - government by the people is so messy and inefficient!]
FF - It's all about efficiency, you see! On that note, here's a newspaper snippet from the same era that is instructive for what the highly educated nitwits inventing/following The Science (TM) believe:
‘Damned Efficient Slavery’ vs. ‘Inefficient Freedom’
https://archive.org/details/dailycolonist0158uvic_1/mode/2up?view=theater
The Daily Colonist (AP), January 4th, 1958
"Sir David, member of the British cabinet, addressed members of the British-American Chamber of Commerce and Trade Centre, the San Francisco World Trade Association and the World Affairs Council of Northern California.
Because the Soviets mobilize and direct all their economic resources from one centre, he said, they have a great advantage.
“Vice-President Nixon called the Russian system slavery. All right, slavery it is. But damned efficient slavery."..."“We cherish our freedom. All right, freedom it is, but sadly inefficient freedom.”"
Another good article to become familiar with is from 1941, pre-dawn for the US entry into WWII. It cautions from the last century that apply to this one. If the Musk's and technocratic oligarchs now fully insinuated into Trump's inner circle singing odes to The Science (TM) as siren songs to Trump we can only pray the wisdom imparted in this piece finds its way into Trump's inner circle, as well. Doubtful the gatekeepers would ever pass it through. And doubtful that Trump's own curiosity would lead him to it on his own. But it's a must-read. At least for the rest of us and other aspiring leaders.
Science in the Totalitarian State
Foreign Affairs [the magazine of the Council on Foreign Relations], January, 1941
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1941-01-01/science-totalitarian-state
[suggest reading entire piece, it's worth it, below is excerpted from end]
"Often enough we hear it said that mechanical invention has outstripped social invention -- that new social forms must be devised if we are to forestall the economic crises that are brought about by what is called the "impact of science" on society. Communism and Fascism are social inventions, intended among other things to solve the economic problems created by technological change under the influence of capitalism. They attempt to answer a question: Are the technical experts and their financial backers to shape the course of society unrestrained, and even to rule nations directly and indirectly, as they did in France, and as they do in part in Great Britain and the United States? The totalitarians say that a capitalistic democratic government cannot control the experts, the inventors, the creators of this evolving mechanical culture. They therefore have decided to take control of thinking, above all scientific thinking, out of which flow the manufacturing processes and the machines which change life."
...
"Democracy flounders before it arrives at satisfactory solutions of its social problems. But it is better to flounder and progress than to follow the philosophy of a dictator and to remain socially and scientifically static."
...
"What is likely to happen to science if totalitarianism prevails is revealed by the course of Egyptian art. In its earliest phases that art was fairly free; hence there was much experimenting, much striving for realistic modes of expression. When the priests took control of Egyptian life a dramatic change occurred. The ways of portraying the human being became stylized. For centuries the style hardly changed. Art had been frozen. And so must it be with research. There can be science and engineering under dictation; but it will be stylized science, engineering which does not progress."
A good article, as far as it goes. But the real power, and therefore the potential for real societal change, rests with the money, banks, CBs, and Treasury departments. If nothing changes in that arena, comme ci comme ça.
In any case, the bankers did succeed in their incitement to violence, and the Civil War was unleashed on the US, with the London bankers backing the Union and the French bankers backing the South. Everyone made a fortune and by 1861 the US was $100 million in debt. At this time, Abraham Lincoln became the new President and snubbed the bankers by issuing US government currency popularly known as Greenbacks to pay Union Army bills without incurring debt to the Rothschilds. At the time, the Rothschild-controlled Times of London wrote:
“If that mischievous policy, which had its origins in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”
.. in reality .. there is no missing link .. not a single one ..
Thinking in a non rationalistic way is experiencing that comprehensibility can happen without going through the intellect, and manifest in a strong emotion instead. And comprehensibility can imply having a correct sense of a future dramatic event. You are perfectly right in combatting the rationalistic and mechanistic ways of operating that defines our world, Mattias, and your understanding shows that you’ve had some unique human experiences, as I did too so far. And you must have a tremendously gifted life to have such faith. For my part, full of my loving soul, I am incredibly unsuccessful, isolated and alone. I cannot buy that I can be my own source of regeneration. I need to be loved and acknowledged, like all of us. Not to fall in despair and inanition is the great challenge. The cardinal virtues that the Greek helds in high esteem were virtues especially because they could be seen and aknowlewdge by their peers. It is not the case anymore. At least not in my world. Nobody will find the words to say something deep and inspiring at my funerals. Reading you makes me feel less alone even though the highly probable fact that we will never meet also adds to my sadness.
Excellent articulation of my reasons for voting for Team Trump and the concerns I have as well. We need the heart, soul, emotional maturity and wisdom of people like RFK Jr, Jay Bhattacharya, Bret Weinstein, Midwestern Doctor, etc, as well as our own grounded, heart-centered judgment and skepticism as agendas roll out to ensure buddies Trump and Musk don’t take the transhumanist turn we fear they could.
But, the Pennsylvania Trump assassination attempt was clearly a fake Deep State operation designed to catapult Trump to the Presidency with Peter Thiel's pawn JD Vance as VP. Thiel is on the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group.
Yeah, yeah. Even so, Trump is a relief from the utter Communist DEM / LEFT. No doubt we will see Trump further promote North American Union with Canada and digital IDs to "fight illegal immigration." North American Union means the death of the US Constitution, the most perfect arrangement yet devised for individual freedom.
Maybe, at least, Trump can snuff "Climate Change" nonsense!?? And North American Union can be stalled? Oh, if only the Bricker Amendment had been passed in the 1950s so Treaties wouldn't TRUMP the Constitution!
Today's news from U.S.A.:
Beware Elon Musk and His Attempts to Steer the World Toward the Neo-Fascist Right.
It will not be the first time in history that someone is seduced by the thrill of unconstrained power, although it may be the first time that so much of it is concentrated in one unelected megalomaniac.
This combination—the richest person in the world, owner and manipulator of the biggest political messaging platform in the world, with direct influence over Trump—puts Musk in the position of being able to move other nations toward the neo-fascist right.
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/musk-steer-world-far-right?utm_source=Common+Dreams&utm_campaign=26ea89eabb-Top+News%3A+Tues.+01%2F07%2F25&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-3b949b3e19-600576943
Indeed, and even though Desmet warns us for the far-right, he jumps on their platforms all the time. He's acting like a shill..
Never did a politician learn from History. And never the politicians were more simply puppets and artificial figures to make us identify with than nowadays. Democrats Republicans all the same smeary stuff. In times when every single event ist manipulated and framed for political purposes, as even the Trump assassination clearly was, the elaborate thoughts you Invest are vanishing into dust.
So what about the Greenland grip of Trump? Canada as part of the US? This ist more than dangerous and hazardous.
This ist quite aggressive... or long planned. Nothing of this was ever mentioned during the election campaign. None. And the good Guys like RFK perhaps made a serious mistake to trust the Siren's Song and follow the Sonnyboys Elon and Donald.
Mass psychosis and formation, indeed.
Most clarifying and astute essay Matthias- thankyou. You raised questions that we would all do well to consider carefully. It is quite a dangerous time in history when many, myself included, are feeling victorious. Let us be mindful that what has occurred is simply a regime change. Our new rulers of the so called "free world" must not be given free range to impose their own decidedly questionable ideological solutions onto humanity. As you pointed out transhumanism isn't an option for a better world. Qualities like love kindness and compassion emanate from within, without them, unfortunately, these ambitions will be left unabated. Thanks again for your words of caution and imploring us all to dig deeper and most importantly to keep our new leaders accountable.
You have a wonderful way of bringing a sensitive and thoughtful perspective to the politics of the day. While many are looking for a quick fix for the pickle we are in, you want to bring understanding at a deeper level of what has gone wrong.
In your assessment you are correct in pointing to the mechanistic worldview as the underlying basis for a technocratic world. A world where physics ultimately explains everything leaves no place for the very things that humanity values the most.
(the soul, love, truth, joy, peace, courage, purpose, good as opposed to evil, communion with the other)
The assumption is that you hold an another world view that provides a basis for better way to live. Although you advocate for truth speaking you have not yet articulated the better worldview that your writing assumes. Do you intend (for example) that Elon ought to put great value on the soul with no basis for the existence of the soul or its value?
Robust values to be passed on within families and communities or even nations will require a basis in reality. At the right time I hope for you to be able to speak of that.
I hope that Trump and Musk will prove to be the “saviors” they appear to be. We must remember they are not working in a vacuum. There are other strong men and women who believe in what the agenda is that will also direct what is going to happen. RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, JDVance and Vivek Ramaswamy are strong and focused individuals. I’m betting on all of them.
Whoever wins the election , gonna keep as much power as possible by myself and let the Heart lead the way .