Democracy is the majority over Man.
Oligarchy is the minority over Man.
Theocracy is god over Man.
Autocracy is Man over Man.
One variant of Technocracy has been conceived as machine over Man. This, however, is wholly misguided, for machines are possessed of no agency. To assert the contrary is to flee all that is known into a neo-platonic world of pure forms. Such an arrangement would – at base – merely be another iteration of autocracy or oligarchy, whereby power over a populace was maintained via the efficient instantiation and maintenance of technological apparatus(es), as opposed to some military body or deference to deity, etc.
We posit it were preferable to develop a anthrotechnocracy which drives towards Man’s overcoming of the tendency towards ruling his fellows by first and foremost, ruling himself, not through mere habitual culmination, but rather, through radical self-directed morphological transformation – not because they do not need to be led but because this cannot be optimally accomplished without extreme self-transformation. Willing alone is sufficient but only if that willing changes the very substratum which allows that will to exert itself. Will comes, of necessity, before dialogue and dialogue before debate. Debate, whether rational or emotional, is wholly insufficient devoid of a intensification of empathetic union between the various factions of man, for without a desire or a will-towards-understanding, the impeccability of a logical formula is rendered irrelevant. It does not matter how crystalline and perfect one’s equation, the math will never be done nor known if all other parties save the creator thereof refuse to observe it. Yet it is the will-towards-understanding of The Self(ves) first, then The Other(s) second, which grant Man the ability to organize in so efficient a way as to seize dominion over every region of the planet to which our species lays claim. Thus, those attributes must be cultivated, but here the quandary: they cannot be cultivated by introspection alone, whether or one or millions. Through the extant will, a new and protean will must be forged for Man is not a beast to the extent he cultivates those attributes which set himself apart therefrom, hence we ask:
Who is better equipped to lead men then he who is more than?
The answer to this question is of paramount importance given that the validity of most contemporary and popular ideologies hinge upon the static nature of man (even if, in a given philosophy, that nature itself is considered non-existent, such a view still hinges upon the stasis of said nonexistence). The Christian believes Man to be inherently sinful, he is irrevocably “fallen.” The Progressive believes Man has not fallen out of some celestial favor, but rather, has instantiated a system of hideous, ethereal oppression which wholly hinges upon those of the present being culpable for some collection of past crimes (slavery, colonization, etc) which carries down the line, from past to present. The green ecologist – the envirocrat – believes that Man is an outgrowth of nature that is yet separate from Nature and thus, antithetical to it; a monster, a hideous polluter-parasite. And so on and so on.
The through-line common to all of these philosophies (and many more) is selecting some past action or set of actions which have had a (perceived) monumental impact upon the peoples of the world such that history has shifted in some fashion so terrible that its lay-lines trammel up to the present and – as a consequence – all attributions that lead up to this supposedly vile, history-changing action, must be expunged from the human mind, whether through prayer or political programs or some other vector, but never through willfully directed morphological change, for that is always considered part and parcel of that dark seed which is believed to have razed the world, whether that is believed to be religious myths of separation/disobedience from some deity or another, separation from “nature,” the industrial revolution, creation of rationalism, colonialism, greed and so on and so on. All of them find their roots in a disdain towards material desire, which is to say, in a unworkable negation of life itself (which is why hypocrisy is so rampant amongst the ranks of the aforementioned philosophies), for even the desire for transcendence of the material plane is itself a material desire and thus, like naive nihilism and totalitarian relativism, material-negation is wholly self-refuting. In addition to being self-rebuffing, such philosophies are also largely (though not wholly) negatory, concerned more with scrapping things away, with pruning down, than with constructing alternative vectors of being (this is still a problem even if that which is being scrapped away is principally damaging or that which should otherwise be removed).
Hence, in contradistinction to the meta-philosophy of material negation and historical-burden theology, we adopt a different vector, a vector of being which is evolutionary, not revolutionary, which is innervationist, not conservationist, which is Protean and unyielding and consciously self-directed (as opposed to the inevitablism of dystopian/utopian eschatology), which is technocratic but anti-bureaucratic, which places man above and beast below and that which next we facilitate even higher still.