Against Technocracy™

y'all cowards do not smoke crack.

In my defense of DEI, I found that the total cost of Civil Rights comes out to 21.8% of GDP. The majority of this comes in the form of crime and transportation costs. Optimally, people would be allowed to self-segregate so that 21% of the wealth of the country wouldn’t be dedicated to circumventing Civil Rights law.

Civil Rights disproportionately affects working-class whites, while largely sparing upper-class whites from its effects. If the goal is innovation, taking the boot off the neck of the working classes is not the priority. Instead, the focus should be on cultivating an environment for the upper class to more efficiently allocate capital.

The real threat to capital efficiency is represented by MAGA, which wants to break up NATO and sink TPP.

source

Although Trump has paused tariffs, he is still on track to significantly reduce foreign trade. The problem with these tariffs is that they are “sticky.” Once tariffs are in place, businesses will grow reliant on them. This creates a class of corporate parasites who will lobby future administrations to keep the tariffs in place. This is the same dynamic of Social Security, where pensioners lobby to keep transferring wealth from the young to the old. Once you begin this dynamic, it is impossible to reverse.

My goal is not to increase the wages of the bottom 10% of American workers. My goal is to maximize investment and research into science and new technologies.

Is this “technocracy?” Sure, in the sense that “technocracy” means “pro-technology.” But in reality, the term “technocrat” confuses more than it informs.¹

The term technocracy means “the government or control of society or industry by an elite of technical experts.” This is not what I advocate for at all.

The Power of Personality

Engineers, scientists, researchers: These people are competent and useful in their particular domain. However, the business of government is not specified, but generalized. To solve the problems at the highest level of social organization, what is required is a class of risk-takers who are capable of navigating corruption without giving in to the squeaky wheels.

The worst form of government is hysterical and neurotic. A government which bows down before pensioners and corporate parasites, too afraid to stand up against special interests. Specialists are ill-equipped for this task, because it is not one of knowledge, but of character.

I don’t care how good you are at math, physics, chemistry, or biology. Rule by the highest IQ does not produce the best society, because no amount of human intelligence can calculate the economy. Good governance isn’t defined by specialization, but boldness, force, power, and vision. Specialists can be appointed by governors; but putting specialists at the top leads to Soviet gerontocracy.

Communism is technocracy. Communism claims that by putting the state in the hands of technical experts, we can best calculate how many shoes to manufacture. In reality, the manufacture of shoes is better calculated by market forces than by intelligent individuals. It is a waste of time to dedicate the lives of brilliant people to the business of orchestrating a command economy. Experts should be working in corporations, not in government.

This is the problem that China has. China is a technocracy, where government officials spam infinite building projects, high-speed rail, and skyscrapers across the Yellow River Valley. This is a huge waste of talent and human capital. The project of governance is not to calculate the allocation of resources, but to resist the urge to minimize risk, which is the constant seduction of bureaucrats.

Low risk societies are low innovation societies. When I say “low risk,” I do not mean “low violence.” Violence isn’t a product of risk-taking behavior, but hysterical behavior. People who are violent are extremely fearful.

The same people who report the greatest fear of ghosts are the most violent toward their children (spanking).

Behind every gangster is single motherhood and fear of the white man.

In an organized context, white people are more capable of effective violence. White people have nuclear bombs and hypersonic missiles. But it is a mistake to say that African societies are “riskier” than white societies.²

I want a risky society, and to best engineer a risky society, I want governors not to be technocrats, but to be cowboys.

This isn’t a new idea. The Mahabharata counsels that society should be ruled by princes and kings who gamble and fight wars. The Brahmin should advise the kings, but not become kings themselves.

When I listened to Curtis Yarvin make the case for monarchy, he suggested to the audience that we make Tim Cook king of America. This is the gayest thing I’ve ever heard, supposedly coming from someone who claims to be “more right-wing than Hitler.”³

Yarvin is a technocrat. He wants a bureaucrat to run America, for the sake of efficiency. He is afraid of NATO and nuclear war and biological weapons and white genocide and all other sorts of scary things. His desire for a patchwork of cryptographic minarchist states comes from his desire for technocracy.

The technocrat values, above all, stability and efficiency. He has no grand vision. It’s all based on fear. I reject technocracy.

The way to engineer the riskiest society possible is by putting crack-smoking football players in charge of Toronto. I am of course speaking of Rob Ford.

How exactly do we get crack-smoking football players into the halls of power? It’s simple: we screen for risk-taking behavior.

If I were dictator of America, here is what I would do:

Design some sort of Evil Obstacle Course with a 1% death rate. Maybe a hike through the Mojave desert; maybe a tour of duty through the Congolese jungle; maybe a survivalist challenge in the Alaskan wilderness. Maybe all three! The point would be to ensure that 1% of everyone who attempts this course will die.

Over the last 10 years, the death rate among active duty military members has remained below 0.08%. These people are not death-defying heroes — they are pencil-pushing bureaucrats. However, if we take number of special forces (70,000), and assume all deaths were among Green Berets, Army Rangers, and so on, then the death rate of 1% is exceeded.⁴

From now on, if you want to go to college, you get two choices:

1. You can go to gay college, which is for the women and the gays. Gay college would be similar to college today, where the classes would be on gay studies and women’s studies, with some STEM for the smart gays.

2. You can go to Evil Obstacle Course University, where after watching someone bleed out in the Congolese jungle, you will be granted four years of tuition free education. I assume Nancy Mace will be there too, so watch out. There will also be hardcore homosexuals who enjoy sadistic topping, but they will not be gay in the 90s sense.

Women who look like this will survive the Congolese jungle.

Let’s say you want to become a Senator, or a Congressman, or the President. In order to qualify for those positions, you will need a degree from an Evil Obstacle Course University. No degree, no can do.

This would weed out all the nerds from government, and ensure governance by crack-smoking football players.⁵

Leon Trotsky was a great man because he led soldiers into battle and risked everything for his ideals. He was also evil, of course, but I would rather be governed by Leon Trotsky than Tim Cook. Tim Cook would be more stable and efficient, but the ultimate result of Tim Cook technocracy is fear-based decisions to minimize risk. There’s nothing great about that.

Leon Trotsky was a genocidal maniac, and it’s a false dichotomy to say that we must choose one or the other. A better example of ideal governance comes from George Washington, who was a huge risk taker and a believer in classical liberalism. Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt were all great presidents because they took risks. They all fought wars and didn’t let the Tim Cooks of the world shame them into pacifism.

Huh?

Dear reader, I assume that some of you are confused. You read my Nietzschean screed, and you think, “huh? I thought you supported Kamala Harris over Donald Trump? Isn’t Donald Trump based and redpilled, while Kamala Harris is cringe and gaypilled?”

Dear reader, I am glad you asked. This is a common confusion, and you are not alone. Do not worry. I hear you, I understand you, and I want to help you. We are in this together.

Donald Trump is not implementing Starship Troopers fascism. What Donald Trump is doing is running a reality TV show from the White House where he strikes fear into liberals and sells memes to the dissident right on Twitter. He sends masked goons after Mexican roofers to generate liberal tears and Twitter Schadenfreude. But none of this is generating a more risky society.

Trump is selling a pacifist vision of America: no foreign wars, no immigrants, no rape, no crime, just white picket fences and factory jobs. This is not heroic or inspiring to me.

I am a neo-liberal. I want to ship all the factory jobs overseas and fight a war with Russia. Unlike Iran, which is difficult and expensive to invade, the ROI on the war in Ukraine is very high. Ukraine has 37 million people who want to be part of the EU. Getting Ukraine in the EU will help balance the power of France and Germany, who are historically hostile to being dominated by America. If America wants to dominate Europe, the best way to do that is to flood the EU with more Slavs. Poland is our best friend in Europe, and Ukraine would be a good friend too.

I do not care about immigration except as a problem to be managed. The existence of immigrants in America or Europe does not spiritually harm me. I realize that promoting mass immigration loses elections, so I am in favor of the Starmer strategy of pretending to be tough on immigrants, because I want to win elections.

My biggest concern, besides fighting a war with Russia and pretending to be tough on immigrants, is funding science. This is because I understand that my Evil Obstacle Course will never come to fruition and my pipedreams have no basis in reality. The only way to break the system is to genetically engineer a Herculean race who are so intelligent that they can ignite a global revolution of elites against the masses.

The left is more in favor of the government funding genetic research than the right. The right-wing wants to ban all government research into science in the name of efficiency. MAGA is about owning the woke and making liberals cry. MAGA is about a “return to normalcy” and making government efficient, pragmatic, and “common sense.” This is all lame and not inspiring to me.

I do not care whether a liberal is crying because they lost their job studying shrimp sex. It is not a consolation prize to me. My life does not revolve around the resentment of the liberal. Rather, my greatest secret dream is to see a form of humanity emerge which is superior and supreme to the mediocrity which is, at the present moment, devolving into sludge.

Here is how I would describe the present moment:

There is a very smart team of geneticists who are currently researching techniques on how to make a new species of humanity. They may or may not be aware of the implications of their research, but they are doing it anyway. At the same time, there is a mob of old people, wokesters, MAGA, and conspiracy theorists banging at the windows, threatening to break in, steal all the equipment, and sell it for spare parts.

I am watching as a humble blogger from the sidelines, praying to God that the scientists make a breakthrough in time before the mob outside smashes through the windows.

It’s possible that I’m being overly pessimistic, and that even if the mob does take power (whether in the form of AOC or Tucker Carlson), that scientists will continue their very important work underground. That is a hopeful thought, but not one I am absolutely certain about. Hence I support the political faction which supports government funding for science, warts and all, because I think we are in a global race against the forces of idiocracy.

Another form of “wishful thinking” on this topic is to suppose that even if the west collapsed into isolationist protectionism, that China could continue the work of science independently. Again, that is a nice idea, and I hope that is a correct idea, but it’s not one I am absolutely convinced of. In my mind, the clock is ticking, and we need to to fire on all cylinders if we are to escape the stable steady state of petty North Korean theocratic rule.

Since there is no political faction willing to implement my Evil Obstacle Course, the only recourse is to select the faction more willing to fund evil mad scientists. There is no political solution to the problem of parasitic capture: there is only a technological solution.

Republicans: call me when you have a better offer on the table.⁶ I will gladly switch parties if you decide to stop the war on science. Something tells me I won’t need to change my party registration for a long time.

Wait, it was just the quest for philosopher’s stone this whole time?

End Credits Music:

It’s on and poppin’
I’m blazing white, now my destiny ain’t stopping
I'm coming up in a song to rap
I sold my soul to Satan, but bought it back from God with this song

Y’all fallin’ off like the last century
No respect from me till you get that cheese
And you see what life is all about

1. For a more esoteric discussion of technocracy, I suggest HP Lovecraft.

2. None of this is necessarily genetic, of course; it could all be culturally and historically contingent.

3. That’s not a quote, but I’ve heard him say things like that, “Hitler is too democratic for me; he was a populist; I’m more elitist than Hitler.”

4. This isn’t very accurate since most deaths in the military are due to suicide and accidents, not enemy hostility, which would have happened even if they stayed at home doing a civilian job.

5. As with every blog I publish, what I say here may sound like a joke, but that does not mean it is not directionally true. I say the actual truth while being humorous. Nothing I am saying here is contrary to what I actually believe, I am simply exaggerating for entertainment value.

6. No, vague defenses of “race science” are not qualifying. When Watson lost his honorary titles, it had no impact on genetic science. It was a symbolic response to a symbolic provocation.

There are no geneticists doing real work being undercut by wokeness. Race and crime stats have nothing to do whatsoever with mRNA research. Anyone claiming that has no familiarity with the field, and is just making stuff up. It’s the same thing when they claim that DEI is leading to planes falling out of the sky: anecdote with no statistical evidence.