Futurism's critique of conservatives and woke lacks substance

Futurism promises to conquer the stars but cannot handle a forest

There is a current holding that only scientific-technological pogre can liberate humanity, that everyone should look to the sky with a desire to know everything, and that conservatives and the proge movement, far from being opposites, are two sides of the same brake. This thesis, presented as futurism, relies on the idea that both cultures delay pogre and distract from the real goal: knowledge. The problem arises when one tries to define what this futurism actually is beyond the label.

A dichotomy that doesn't quite hold up

The first objection is formal but significant: lumping conservatives and the proge movement together to create a third way sounds like manufacturing another false dichotomy. There are no precise foundations, no program, and no clear criterion distinguishing futurism from simple chronology. When asked about its bases, the answer remains vague: 20-30% of the diagnosis is accepted as valid and the rest is dismissed with "despite errors, the vibes are correct." That is not a school of thought; it is a feeling.

The longing for stars and the elite problem

The definition that does appear has appeal: scientific-technological pogre as the sole path to freedom, knowledge as a human drive, and space conquest as the horizon. Up to here, anyone would sign off. The twist comes when it is pointed out that conservatives and proge do not prevent pogre, only delay it, and that their culture makes people lose that longing. According to this reading, they are the front allowing the NWO elite to stay in power. An elite that, by the way, is never defined by names or concrete mechanisms.

Is futurism just technocracy under another name?

The comparison sneaking into the conversation is technocracy: Elon Musk, China, Fabian enlightenment. And there the gap opens. Because claiming the scientific method is one thing; handing government over to those who claim to know is another. The Chinese model is cited as an example of imported technocratic success, with the caveat that a communist flag was placed where there was no communism. Enthusiasm for the result sits poorly with the question of who decides what pogre is.

The accusation that dismantles the label

The sharpest blow does not come from conservatives: it comes from those pointing out that this is nothing more than recycled pogre. If futurism shares with pogre faith in technology as a motor for liberation and distrust of tradition, the novelty is cosmetic. The response to this accusation does not arrive. Meanwhile, the activity truly claimed as human—going out to photograph the Milky Way with your brother—is dismissed as conservative or proge depending on convenience. No one knows what a futurist would do on a Saturday night.

The debate gets stuck exactly there: at the moment one must move from vibes to program. With technology as the only compass, the question of who pilots it remains unanswered.