The Utopian Scientists

we cannot be stopped!
we have reams of data that swords cannot cut through!

“There is another fundamental point to emphasize: it is difficult to adopt science and technology, while circumscribing them within the limits of a civilization’s material means and instruments, that is, while preserving, in regards to them, a certain distance; on the contrary, it is practicably inevitable the it becomes impregnated with the world conceptions on which modern profane science bases itself, conceptions that are practically inculcated in our spirits by the methods of the customary methods of instruction and that has, on the spiritual plane, a destructive effect. The very concept of true knowledge is thus totally distorted.”

The above is a quote from Julius Evola from an interview published in La Nation Europeenne (H/T Gornahoor). I find it to be very relevant to the discussion of science and technology going on within Reaction today. It cannot be denied that the entropic degeneration of Modernity has led to many individuals steeped in the world of academic research in the fields of science and technology to suddenly become heretics. A few of them have been rocked from the political delusions that are supposed to chain them and make them do the Modern elite’s bidding.

And so, such people come to Reaction and they begin to study our critique of the Modern World. The problem arises in their conclusions which are no less damaging than the misguided ideologies of Fascism and National Socialism, which reacted in such schizophrenic ways that they ended up setting Reaction back perhaps a century.

I call these people the Utopian Scientists. They essentially posit that the shackles of Modernity can be cast off if only technological super-humans were running things. If only you could get rid of pesky democracy and replace it with genetically enhanced aryans or even god-computers. If you haven’t yet come across this line of thinking, pay a visit to the transhumanist side of the blogosphere and you will see what I mean.

because denying something as human as death
is apparently… Reactionary???

It’s important to stress you don’t actually see much of this thought coming from the Human Biodiversity crowd. They quite rightly stick to the exposition of the reality of racial differences rather than buying into massive eugenics schemes.

We are talking here about the proposed abolition of humanity, what is really the ultimate denial of that which the Reactionary cherishes. To be clear, if you seek to create a technological utopia where all is possible due to profane science, then you are in fact fulfilling the wishes of Modernity, for it is Modernity that works day and night to deny human reality, to overcome our very nature with concepts such as feminism, egalitarianism, and democracy. The Utopian Scientist is essentially recognizing that the supposed apex of these fraudulent Modern concepts is a lie, but instead of denying that the concepts are worth pursuing at all, he simply seeks to succeed where the Modernist has failed!

And so the Utopian Scientist is absolutely fine with mass abortion, genetic manipulation, designer babies, sex change surgery, and abominable experiments such as producing children with three biological parents (recently legalized in the United Kingdom)

These Utopian Scientists are very smug in their attitude, and so not dissimilar to liberals. When you question them, they are likely to say things like “get out of the way of progress!” or “you don’t stand a chance against the future supermen!”. I’m not exaggerating here for hyperbole, this is actually how they act and so you can see that the comparison between them and the average liberal is a very apt one.

The links are sometimes even more tangible than that.

Here is a transhumanist blog that carries the HeForShe feminist banner which I made fun of here. The Utopian Scientists are not Reactionaries at all. Let me make that clear. No definition of the word Reactionary, whether you attach a little ‘neo’ to the front of it or not can ever include this disturbing line of Orwellian narcissism, that thinks it understands the problem of man and has a clear, bold solution to make everything better. “We will eradicate the human curse of death!” is no different to “we will eradicate the human curse of poverty!” or “we will eradicate the human curse of gender inequality!”. 

What really differentiates thinkers like Ray Kurzweil from other people who actively work for the elite, men like George Soros or Cass Sunstein? Because he is smarter? Because his utopian vision would somehow be better. Because somehow he would succeed where others have failed.

utopian dreams

This is a kind of trojan horse. Not only are there very tangible links between transhumanism and the liberal elite themselves (something Alex Jones actually has right!), but at the very core of this ideology of transcending humanity is a rejection of metaphysics, a rejection of the Divine Realm. It is, like regular liberalism, a rejection of human reality.

It would actually be preferable to see Islam conquer all of western civilization than live in the endless hell that transhumanists propose, a profoundly liberal world focused on the wants and needs of people, something legitimate Reaction rejects as an innately positive pursuit.

I am not denying there are transhumanist thinkers who write about Reactionary ideas in a very competent and well-thought out manner. They definitely do exist. However I think reconciling these two things is impossible. They tell us that their scientific utopia is inevitable. The counterpoint is that if that is true, mankind is doomed regardless. In a world where individual people have such unbridled power, our entire species is sure to perish. The crude thermonuclear weapons developed in the last century were often only one slip up away from destroying the world fifty times over. Simply put, the technology that helps us survive has never kept up with the technology designed to kill us. If we are indeed approaching this ‘singularity’, this time when technology will explode, then one has to feverishly look at the clock and wonder how long do we have to get off this planet? Space travel has stalled. Many expected us to have Mars colonies by now and yet we do not. We’re stuck in a petri dish getting smaller and smaller and the transhumanists propose technology that will increasingly put that entire dish at risk.

It is important that we have intelligent people, as well as stupid people. Making everyone intelligent is a recipe for disaster.

It is important that we have leaders and followers. Making everyone a leader is a recipe for disaster.

It is important that we have people who struggle and people who live affluently. Making everyone live affluently is a recipe for disaster.

It is important that we all die. Nobody can escape death, nor should they.

The concepts that deny these truths, being a threat to order, something Reactionaries cherish, are by their nature anti-Traditional. There is however light at the end of the tunnel. The world is not as bleak as they would have us believe. Geopolitics and economics still dictate survival and ruin. Science and technology for all their advancements still play second fiddle when it comes to the collapse or success of societies. It cannot be doubted that technology is advancing by leaps and bounds, but in a chaos, in the dystopia foretold at the end of the Dark Age, such pursuits lose their support structure, and their immoral practitioners are just people like you and me, flesh and blood. In spite of their utopian dreams, they die like the rest of us.

3 thoughts on “The Utopian Scientists

  1. In 'The Divine Invasion' Philip Dick wrote of a future dominated by two fused elite groups: The Christian/Islamic Church, and the Scientific Legate. A watered-down, anti-Scriptural 'church' and a global technocratic elite, sure of their Holy Data Points but strangers to God. Peering at the stars but never seeing.

    The main myth of post-Enlightenment humanism is that humanity and the planet are salvageable and sustainable via 'progressive technology'. No set moral sphere exists, God is irrelevant (merely another Unproved Hypothesis), and the self-selected elite of the species will guide humanity to Secular Utopia. Now available with 50 percent less Global Warming! :O)

    Also reminds me of Bacon's vision for the Americas — 'New Atlantis'. He was very influential in setting up the Colonies. Though professing Christianity, Bacon instead promoted a form of Masonic Scientism. . . rather the type of thing to be found at Pharaoh's Court among his sorcerers during confrontations with Moses.



  2. Yes, and this is why I draw a parallel between this substratum of technocratic thought and the current liberal order. It appears to not be truly Reactionary, but rather simply a disapproval of the admittedly feckless management of the Modern state.


  3. Yes, Transhumanism is nonsense, yet another Utopian idea, and one not that different from Progressive one, and is, of course, unacceptable to ractosphere. Many a illogical positivist Leftist (which is exactly the background of all transhumanists, even those that consider themselves “right”-wing* ones) thought that Science and Engineering will bring about salvation, but all the machines and electronics in the world cannot seem to replace Social Technology we have lost, Social Technology that was able to guide humanity through plagues and hardships unimaginable to modern man. Social Technology made people mentally strong and hopeful. Now we have smartphones, ninety-inch LED-TVs, and basically a Cockaigne, and all that luxury, comfort and hedonism isn't enough, people are becoming mentally ill on massive scale. That being said I take issue with Traditionalists that propose dumping Capitalism and Engineering and going for Feudalism and Agrarianism. I think that's just a confusion on their part. It would be like saying let's dump crop-rotation. Engineering cannot in itself be evil, only it's usage can be evil – one can use Internet to read Church Fathers, or to watch pornography, that says something about the man using the Internet, but nothing about the Internet itself. Of course, I do believe we need Theonomy to control Engineering, so as to prevent such travesties as IVF, three-parent-babies, sex-“change”-operations, etc. Another thing certain Traditionalists get confused about, and then make a categorical error is about sin and legislation. They think that everything bad should be banned, even though some things are only exacerbated when banned (and thus cause a much greater damage to society then they would otherwise – if they were legal, but controlled). People in Middle Ages, as well as Moldbug recognized that you cannot create a Utopia, and thus thing that would case greater destruction should it be banned should be formalized. So what does that mean? That means that all IVF, abortion, sex-“change”, pornography, etc. should be banned, but usury and prostitution should be formalized (and probably the drugs too), and all media should be tightly controlled, because, as we have seen in case of the West, meme-warfare is much more dangerous than the ordinary war.

    * “Right”-wing to them just means they're no longer left-liberals, but have instead become left-libertarian.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s