Hey Mister President…

We’ve been “Trumped”. Which is the greater threat? Communism, Socialism, Fascism, or… Technocracy…otherwise stated as “The Science of Social Engineering”…

Do a quick search on the old Technate of America Map

Now Greenland, Elon Musk, and Venezuela make sense.

See below…

https://bostonraremaps.com/inventory/technocracy-inc-technate-of-america-1940/

Also, did a quick research on Technocracy, Inc.

See below…

Do you mean Technocracy Inc. as in the political–economic movement? If so, here’s the quick, clean rundown:

Technocracy Inc. was (and technically still is) an organization founded in the 1930s in the U.S. and Canada. It promoted technocracy—the idea that society should be run by scientists, engineers, and technical experts, not politicians, markets, or elected officials.

Core ideas they pushed:

🧠 Technical expertise over politics – decisions made by engineers, economists, scientists

⚙️ Energy-based economics – replace money/prices with systems based on energy use and efficiency

🌎 Continental administration – they imagined a single “North American Technate”

🚫 Anti-capitalist & anti-democratic (in the traditional sense) – they saw both as inefficient

What happened:

They got huge attention during the Great Depression, when capitalism looked broken

Never actually took power or implemented their system

Over time, they became more of a fringe ideological group than a serious political force

Today, Technocracy Inc. still exists in a small, mostly historical/ideological capacity

If you’re asking because of:

modern “technocracy” talk (Silicon Valley, AI governance, experts running things), or

conspiracy theories that misuse the term, or

you want to connect it to current politics or tech culture

tell me which angle you’re going for and I’ll zoom in 🎯

was elon musks grandfather the prersident of technocracy, inc in canaga?

Yes — Elon Musk’s maternal grandfather, Joshua N. Haldeman, was indeed a prominent figure in the Technocracy Incorporated movement in Canada in the 1930s — though the details get muddled online and in conspiracy-laden posts. Here’s the fact-checked breakdown:

✅ What’s True

Joshua N. Haldeman was Elon Musk’s maternal grandfather.

In the 1930s and up through about 1941, he was involved with the technocracy movement in Canada — more specifically, as a leader in Technocracy Incorporated there. Some sources describe him as research director or leader of the Regina branch of the organization during that period.

Technocracy Incorporated was a real movement founded in the U.S. (by Howard Scott) that had a Canadian presence and advocated replacing traditional political systems with governance led by technical experts.

In 1940, some members of Technocracy Inc. in Canada — including Haldeman — were arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police after the group was deemed illegal during World War II.

After that period, Haldeman’s political focus shifted — he later became involved with other movements like the Social Credit Party of Saskatchewan.

🧠 Important Clarifications

He wasn’t “President of Canada” or president of a country-wide technocracy. The organization itself was not a governing body, but rather a political/social movement. Haldeman’s leadership was within the Canadian branch, not over a sovereign nation.

“President of Technocracy Inc.” isn’t a formal title widely documented in reputable sources; he is more accurately described as a key leader or director of the Canadian organization. Some secondary claims (especially in conspiracy posts) exaggerate his role.

Many online claims tie him to extremist political views — including racism, antisemitism, or apartheid support — but documented evidence is mixed and often contested; some reputable analyses note controversial views, while others debunk extreme allegations like Nazi party membership.

🧾 Bottom Line

✔️ Yes — Haldeman was a leader in Technocracy Incorporated’s Canadian movement, which aimed to restructure government around technocratic principles.
❌ No — he was not literally president of Canada or of a political technate nation.
❌ No strong evidence that he was a formal national “president” of Technocracy Inc. internationally.

If you want, I can explain what Technocracy Incorporated actually believed and how it operated — historically, ideologically, and compared to modern technocratic ideas.

please do

Alright—let’s really unpack it, cleanly and without the conspiracy fog.

What Technocracy, Inc. actually believed

At its core, Technocracy Inc. argued one blunt idea:

Modern society is too complex to be run by politicians, markets, or voters. It should be run by technical experts using scientific measurement.

They thought democracy and capitalism were obsolete technologies.

1. Governance by experts, not politicians

Society would be run by engineers, scientists, systems analysts

No elections, no parties, no parliaments

Decisions made based on data, efficiency, and physical limits, not ideology or public opinion

They genuinely believed this would be more humane, not more authoritarian.

2. No money, no prices

This is where it gets weird (and interesting):

They wanted to abolish money, wages, prices, and debt

Replace it with an energy accounting system

Every product and service would be priced in units of energy

Every citizen would receive an equal “energy credit” allocation

The idea: energy is the real currency of an industrial society

So instead of dollars → kilowatt-hours, joules, BTUs, etc.

3. The “North American Technate”

They didn’t think countries made sense anymore.

They proposed a single administrative unit covering:

the U.S.

Canada

parts of Mexico

Borders, states, and provinces would disappear

Administration would be organized around production regions, not politics

This is why governments got nervous.

4. View of democracy

They were openly critical of democracy—but not in a cartoon villain way.

Their argument:

Voters don’t have the technical knowledge to run industrial systems

Elections incentivize short-term thinking and popularity contests

Complex systems (power grids, logistics, infrastructure) already rely on experts anyway

They thought democracy was a 19th-century system trying to run a 20th-century machine.

How the organization actually operated

Technocracy Inc. was not a secret cabal.

Very public

Uniforms (gray suits!)

Lectures, pamphlets, radio talks

Charts, diagrams, and pseudo-engineering language everywhere

It looked more like:

a cross between a think tank, a social movement, and a very earnest engineering club

Leadership structure

Headed in the U.S. by Howard Scott

Regional directors in the U.S. and Canada

Joshua N. Haldeman was one of those Canadian leaders—active, vocal, organizing—but not a global president

Why Canada banned it (temporarily)

During World War II, Canada outlawed Technocracy Inc.

Why?

Their ideas rejected parliamentary democracy

They opposed nationalism and war mobilization logic

Governments feared it could undermine wartime unity

Haldeman and others were arrested briefly—not for violence, but for political ideology.

Why it collapsed

Several reasons:

Overconfidence

They assumed experts could design society top-down flawlessly

No transition plan

How do you actually get from capitalism to technocracy?

Public fear

“No elections” scared people

Economic recovery

Once the Great Depression eased, urgency faded

Howard Scott

Charismatic, but not a great institutional leader

By the 1950s, it was mostly a fringe group.

How this connects to modern technocracy (without conspiracies)

Here’s the important part.

Technocracy Inc. failed—but technocratic thinking didn’t.

Today you see echoes in:

Central banks run by economists, not voters

Algorithmic governance

AI-assisted policy decisions

“Trust the experts” vs “popular will” debates

Corporate governance by technical elites

Silicon Valley’s belief that systems can be engineered

The modern version is softer, decentralized, and hidden inside institutions rather than openly revolutionary.

About Elon Musk (carefully)

Two key points:

Ideas are not genetic

Musk has never endorsed Technocracy Inc.

That said:

He is clearly drawn to engineering-first problem solving

Skeptical of bureaucracy and slow democratic processes

Comfortable with elite technical decision-making

That doesn’t make him a technocrat ideologue—but it explains why people draw the line (sometimes sloppily).

If you want, next we can:

compare Technocracy Inc. vs authoritarianism

talk about why technocracy keeps coming back in crises

or break down which of their ideas aged badly vs surprisingly well

Just say the word.

what countries were included in North American Technate?

Good question — and this is one of the places where Technocracy Inc. was very specific, but often misremembered.

The North American Technate (as Technocracy Inc. defined it)

They envisioned one single administrative unit based on industrial and energy systems, not politics or culture.

It included:

✅ Core territory

United States

Canada

Greenland

Those three were always included in their official maps and literature.

⚠️ Mexico (partially)

Only the northern, industrialized portion of Mexico

Generally described as Mexico north of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec

Southern Mexico was considered outside the shared energy–industrial system at the time

So:

✔️ Northern Mexico: in

❌ Central & southern Mexico: out

❌ Explicitly excluded

Central America

South America

Europe

Asia

The Caribbean (as a governing region)

Why these borders?

They didn’t pick borders based on:

language

culture

ethnicity

politics

They picked them based on:

energy grids

transportation systems

resource flows

industrial integration

Their logic was:

“This is already one machine. Politics is just pretending it’s not.”

What they wanted to eliminate

Within the Technate:

No nations

No states or provinces

No citizenship in the modern sense

No borders

Everything would be run by functional regions (energy production, agriculture, manufacturing, logistics).

Important clarification

This was:

❌ not a secret UN plan

❌ not global government

❌ not something that ever got close to implementation

It was a theoretical model from the 1930s, built around the industrial realities of that era.

One last nuance

Later technocratic thinkers sometimes talked about other technates (European, Asian, etc.), but Technocracy Inc. itself only focused on North America — they believed global coordination was premature.

If you want, I can:

show how their technate map compares to modern energy grids 🌐

explain why Greenland mattered so much to them (it’s actually interesting)

or contrast this with today’s de facto technocratic regions