IMAGINE a world in which our system of representative democracy was replaced by one which installed only engineers and scientists atop society, to make decisions based on their expertise and methodology alone.

Representative democracy – imperfect though it is – would be gone, as ‘the people’ would no longer need to have a say, instead being ruled only by ‘experts’ using their technical expertise and intellect to manage the economy and society as a whole.

It may sound fanciful, but it was an idea that gained strength in the US during and after the Great Depression, which engulfed the world between 1929 and 1939.

People were struggling, and open to new ideas as the system in place failed them.

One of those new ideas was Technocracy which, as outlined above, proclaimed the possibility of a prosperous future if we handed power to scientists and engineers – and scientists and engineers alone – who would create a technological utopia which did away with democracy and instead used pure science to guide humanity.

Technocracy Inc, a lead group in the movement, believed traditional democratic governments were rife with waste and incompetence and, when defining its philosophy in 1938, said: “Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population of this continent.

“For the first time in human history it will be done as a scientific, technical, engineering problem. There will be no place for Politics or Politicians, Finance or Financiers, Rackets or Racketeers.”

It was always a wacky theory – doing away with money (instead giving people ‘energy certificates’) and traditional government – but it gained some popularity as economies collapsed.

Some enthusiasts took their belief in Technocracy to an extreme level, changing their names to numbers – such as 1x1809x56, seemingly in a sign of their dedication to the ethos.

But anyway…

Technocracy Inc was led by Howard Scott, alongside leading members such as American-born farmer and chiropractor, Joshua Norman Haldeman.

Howard Scott, the founder of Technocracy Inc. Picture: Technocracy Inc

Based in Canada, Haldeman lost his farm during the Great Depression, and in 1936, got involved with Technocracy Inc.

Unfortunately for him, the Canadian government banned the organisation at the start of the Second World War, viewing it as being subversive to the war effort.

Haldeman had been involved in the production and distribution of a Technocracy Inc document entitled ‘Statement of Patriotism by Those Who Were Technocrats’, which was deemed likely to cause ‘disaffection to His Majesty’ and was arrested and fined.

However, after a fall out with his Technocracy Inc comrades (the group was later permitted as it pledged support for the war effort) and several failed attempts at election to political roles, Haldeman became disillusioned with Canada and made the decision to move his family to South Africa.

Now, at this point, South Africa was an unashamed racist, apartheid state.

But this was no problem for Haldeman, who said the government’s “attitude” (of apartheid) had, far from being a negative, actually “encouraged me to come and settle here”.

It turns out, Technocrat, chiropractor and farmer Haldeman was a huge racist.

In 1951, he wrote a piece about his adopted home country for a Canadian newspaper which included the line: “The natives are very primitive and must not be taken seriously.”

It added: “Some are quite clever in a routine job, but the best of them cannot assume responsibility and will abuse authority.

“The present government of South Africa knows how to handle the native question.”

Joshua N Haldeman’s piece in Canadian newspaper The Leader-Post, published in August 1951

His racism is unashamed in the piece, which also said: “In spite of the best efforts of the Communists, they have no practical success. Any talk of a native uprising in Africa is purely Communist wishful thinking or propaganda.

“There is no place in the world where the natives are treated better nor receive higher wages than here.”

Indeed, the Haldemans employed – (“we have”) – “two native (Negro) garden boys in the summer and one in the winter and a native girl”. Note, the bracketed phrase was not added by us, it was what Haldeman wrote.

He spoke of how the “law requires that we supply them with separate furnished rooms with nine-inch brick walls, private toilet and shower – in fact better living accommodation that I enjoyed for most of my life in Canada”.

That’s fine then.

However, he continued, despite paying “$10 to $15 a month”, he said it was “impossible to make a native work hard”.

“It takes three natives to do the work of one white man,” he added.

You can read the full, shocking piece HERE

Not only was Haldeman a racist, in later life he went on to espouse conspiracy theories on a veritable who’s-who of topics we still see today, from fluoridation to vaccines.

Haldeman also claimed – in true right-wing style – the existence of an international conspiracy of Jewish bankers, claiming they controlled “hordes of coloured people”, just to add to the racism of it all.

So, he was a man at the forefront of the Technocracy movement who, it’s fair to say, showed more than a hint of Nazi tendencies, including anti-semitism, racism, a belief in the superiority of the white race, and an enthusiasm for apartheid.

Haldeman, a pilot, died in a plane crash in 1974, aged 71.

Why are we talking about Technocracy and in particular, Joshua N Haldeman? Well, because it would appear his legacy may live on.

For Joshua had two wives and was father to five children, one of whom was Maye Haldeman.

Maye, now 76, is a model and dietician who has appeared in the likes of Time magazine, Vogue and Sports Illustrated.

In 1970, she married a man whose name may sound familiar. He was called Errol Musk.

Maye and Errol went on to have three children; Elon, Kimbal and Tosca.

Elon Musk has, of course, gone on to achieve big things, be it with Tesla, SpaceX, or now as the owner of social media site X (formerly Twitter) and as an advisor to newly-re-elected US President, Donald Trump.

However, in recent years, the world has watched as Musk has appeared to assume a political persona, despite claiming in 2021 that he would “prefer to stay out of politics”. The persona he has chosen is that of right-wing provocateur and now, right-wing government advisor and MAGA (Make America Great Again) devotee.

Mike Johnson, speaker of the United States House of Representatives, with Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Picture: Office of Speaker Mike Johnson

So, back to Joshua N Haldeman. The reason we introduced him is because he is Elon Musk’s grandad.

And Errol, Elon’s father, has gone further than me in suggesting Haldeman had fascist tendencies.

He says he witnessed it.

Speaking recently to the Podcast and Chill YouTube show, Errol said the Haldemans moved to South Africa because they “sympathised with the Afrikaner (white South Africans largely seen as supporting the National Party, who implemented the apartheid regime) government”.

“I don’t think they knew what the Germans, the Nazis, were doing, but they were in the German party in Canada and sympathised with the Germans,” he went on, adding: “He (Joshua) said he wants to be with the Afrikaners because he agreed with apartheid, you see.”

So Errol – who is estranged from Elon, it should be noted – says the Haldemans had Nazi sympathies.

But what of that philosophy Joshua was arrested over – Technocracy?

Well, that continues today, albeit in a small, niche way.

But in 2019, the phrase appeared in the mainstream once again – in a tweet by Elon Musk.

Tweeting about his long-vaunted wish to colonise Mars, Musk said he was “accelerating Starship development to build the Martian Technocracy”.

Technocracy. Got it.

Also, do you remember when Musk and then-partner Grimes announced the birth of their son in May 2000, who they named X Æ A-12 (which they later changed to X Æ A-Xii)?

Does such an approach to monikers ring any bells?

Despite Musk claiming it was Grimes who “mostly came up with the name”, there’s no escaping it incorporates a certain Technocratic vibe (see what I did there?).

Now, Musk has once again hit the headlines – for casting what absolutely appeared to be a Nazi salute during a speech celebrating President Trump’s re-election.

Amid the uproar, the billionaire stopped short of denying his gesture was Nazi-influenced, but said his critics need “better dirty tricks” and that comparing people to Hitler is “sooo tired”, so who knows. It does appear, through his tweets and retweets in recent days, that he is attempting to present this as similar to people waving their arms around, or waving at folks. It wasn’t. This was a very deliberate gesture, made with considerable gusto. Twice.

Elon Musk threw what appeared to be a ‘Nazi salute’ during a speech in support of Donald Trump

But his actions should also be seen in context. Context that includes examples of a person who, in my opinion, has no grounds to complain when people deduce meaning in gestures that clearly appear aligned with a ‘Nazi salute’. Musk’s recent actions make such a conclusion inevitable.

The context includes the fact Musk has, again through X (formerly Twitter), claimed Jewish businessman and philanthropist George Soros’ charity foundation “appears to want nothing less than the destruction of western civilisation”. (Soros is the subject of numerous right-wing, anti-semitic conspiracy theories)

It includes when, in November 2023, Musk again provoked outrage when he responded to a post on, you guessed it, X (formerly Twitter), which claimed Jewish communities advocated a “dialectical hatred against whites”. He called the tweet “the actual truth”.

He later apologised for the comment, saying it was “foolish” and “literally the worst and dumbest post that I’ve ever done”.

Musk has also attracted attention in the UK with his support for jailed right-wing activist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – better known as Tommy Robinson – as well as calling Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer “complicit in the rape of Britain” during his tenure as head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

And he has also given his support to the right-wing, anti-immigration AfD party in Germany – even hosting an interview with the controversial group’s leader on X. Perhaps Elon, like his grandparents before him (if Errol Musk is to be believed) also ‘sympathises with the Germans’? Well, those Germans, anyway.

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party is also continuing to court a donation from Musk, as reports suggest the billionaire is keen on unseating the democratically-elected UK Government. That’s not terrifying. At all.

Whatever is going on with Musk, it appears his descent into a right-wing world filled with conspiracy, anti-semitism and racism continues apace.

All that said, whatever we think of Elon Musk – his relatives’ actions and beliefs should not be ascribed to him.

Yet, it is hard not to conclude his grandfather’s views might have an impact on Elon – particularly when it appears he himself acknowledges it.

It is clear Joshua was revered by his family. Ashlee Vance, in his 2015 biography of Musk, writes how Maye grew up “idolising her parents”, and Vance also notes how Musk himself buys into the notion he may have inherited his high tolerance for risk from his grandfather.

So it’s safe to assume Elon grew up hearing only good things about his grandfather – an avowed racist and Technocracy devotee.

And in recent years, his statements and actions have hinted at those of Technocracy Inc, which believed only highly-trained engineers and technology experts could build the ‘new’ world, remember.

“The engineers and mechanics created this civilization, and will eventually dominate it,” said Technocracy Inc founder, Howard Scott.

Who created our ‘modern’ civilisation, would you say, and would – in a Technocracy – qualify to govern us all right now?

Someone like Elon Musk perhaps? Or Mark Zuckerberg (wait until you hear about ‘the Zuck’s’ obsession with Augustus)? Maybe Jeff Bezos, or Peter Thiel – all of whom have cosied up to the new US president? It would certainly make Technocratic sense.

Who knows what comes next for the US – and indeed the world – but I think heralding Martian Technocracies, numbers as names, Nazi salutes and tech bros taking over, would have made grandpa Joshua proud – but don’t take my word for it.

As I said earlier, we should not ascribe the beliefs and actions of a racist, anti-semitic Technocrat to his grandson.

But as Elon’s uncle Scott (Haldeman) said of Joshua in Vance’s biography: “We were left with the impression we were capable of anything. You just have to make a decision and do it.

“In that sense, my father would be very proud of Elon.”

PAUL JONES
Editor-in-Chief
Follow me on BlueSky @p0gal.bsky.social

ADDENDUM:

ON Monday, February 3, US President Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social site about South Africa.

The post said the US would be “cutting off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation of this situation has been completed”.

Trump did not go in to detail over exactly what South Africa was doing that so riled him but, you may be shocked to hear, it would appear it has to do with race.

Trump appears to be talking about a new law in South Africa which could see unused land bought by the government “in the public interest” (expropriated) and handed back to new owners “in the public interest”.

Now, to understand the reasoning behind this, we need to take a step back.

Obviously, South Africa has a horrific history of racism – including the installation of apartheid decades ago (but not that far back).

We all know how heinous that system was, but read on and you may find it was more repulsive than you know.

In 1948, National Party prime minister, DF Malan, started implementing a policy of apartheid.

One thing the National Party did was to introduce the Group Areas Act (GAA). And yes, it’s as horrific as it sounds.

Very different South African presidents Cyril Ramaphosa, left, and DF Malan, right

The GAA literally defined which racial groups could occupy which areas. It made it against the law for people of certain races to live in certain parts of towns, cities, of the country.

This didn’t only apply to where someone lived, it also affected businesses, with those too subject to the designations.

And as you can imagine, such a despicable scheme was not devised with any fairness in mind.

No, it was a tool to further relegate – and enshrine in law – the status of white people as the ruling class.

Nelson Mandela, in his Long Walk to Freedom book, said: “Under its regulations, each racial group could own land, occupy premises, and trade only in its own separate area.”

Needless to say, under the act (and the Native Resettlement Act 1954 that followed) those ‘racial groups’ – officially designated as ‘coloureds (mixed race people)’, ‘Indians’ and ‘natives (black South Africans)’ – did not fare well.

Under the law, white people could simply declare an area – an actual part of a town or city – to be ‘whites only’, and forcibly remove anyone else, no matter how long they had lived there, whether they ran businesses, or what their claim on the land was.

Mr Mandela added: “If whites wanted the land or houses of the other groups, they could simply declare that land a white area and take them.”

And take them they did.

For example, in February 1955, thousands of police officers descended on Sophiatown, a suburb of Johannesburg.

Though poor, Sophiatown was a cultural hub, largely inhabited by black people (natives), although white people and others also lived in the area. Some black people owned the homes they lived in, which became an extreme rarity in the coming years.

But white believers in apartheid decided Sophiatown was too close to their neighbourhoods. So they took it.

Some 2,000 police officers entered Sophiatown and told people to gather their things and get out. They were moved to cramped townships, including Soweto.

After the removal, Sophiatown was renamed ‘Triomf’ – which means ‘victory’. The victory of a brutal, disgusting, racist system.

Though apartheid ended in the early 1990s and in 2006, Triomf was finally renamed Sophiatown, its effects – and that of acts like the GAA – remain.

People did not get their land back. Not even close.

The area was renamed Sophiatown in 2006. Picture: Google

In 2018, South Africa’s first ever land audit showed white people owned an overwhelming 72% of individually-owned farms and agricultural holdings.

Mixed race citizens (coloured people) owned 15%, Indians owned 5% and Africans owned 4%.

This has, as you would imagine, continued to be a point of contention in South Africa, as it is clearly unfair.

As said earlier, the South African government has now passed a law that would see some land returned to public ownership – and potentially to black ownership.

This is not like the GAA. The new law would only allow land to be expropriated where it is “just and equitable and in the public interest”, with landowners paid for the property, and where the land is not being used and is not earmarked for development or business.

Mr Trump also told reporters the South African government is “taking away land and confiscating land” – but they’re not.

President Ramaphosa responded on X (formerly Twitter), saying: “South Africa is a constitutional democracy that is deeply rooted in the rule of law, justice and equality. The South African government has not confiscated any land.”

Trump seems blissfully unaware of this, unsurprisingly.

But why would he think that? Why would he, seemingly randomly, chose to enter a policy debate taking place in more than 9,000 miles away?

Enter one Elon Musk.

On his social media site X (formerly Twitter), Mr Musk perhaps gave away the real source of the President’s post – and the reason behind his sceptical view of the new law – when he asked South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa: “Why do you have openly racist ownership laws?”

Hmmm. Like Trump, why would Elon Musk get involved?

Might we find the answer in our previous look at Mr Musk, which involved a mysterious move to South Africa, an openly racist grandfather who would be ‘proud’ of him? Might this give us an insight into why Donald Trump is picking this battle and frankly, completely misrepresenting it?

In the mid 1990s, after the end of apartheid, the South African government said it would aim to return 30% of land forcibly taken from black people to its previous owners.

That has not happened. An estimated 10% of commercial farmland is believed to have been returned, but that 72% figure remains a damning reflection of a country still affected by brutal segregation.

Under apartheid, black South African people were forced out of their homes, their businesses and forced to give up their land.

White people have not suffered the same fate.

In 2018, a BBC analysis showed there was ‘no reliable evidence’ that white farmers are any more at risk of being murdered than anyone else.

And as the South African President himself said, no land has been taken under the new law, and even if it were, it would have to be unused land, not used for business, not used for development – and the owner would be paid.

In our previous piece on Mr Musk, we detailed how his racist grandfather Joshua N Haldeman wrote of how “the present government of South Africa knows how to handle the native question”.

I don’t think he would say the same now – and nor does his grandson, who recently came under fire for throwing what looked like a Nazi salute during a Trump victory speech. We can only wonder why…

NOTES: As usual, I have endeavoured to link statements in this opinion piece to their sources, so you can find out more, should you wish. Send comments (polite ones only please!) to paul@blackmorevale.net.