And yet, the most terrifying part? Donald Trump, the supposed strongman at the heart of it all, is oblivious. He has no grand ideological project beyond his own power. He does not understand the system being built around him, nor the fact that his own presidency is merely a vehicle for forces that see him as a useful, temporary battering ram against democracy.
But those around him? They understand perfectly.
This article is a good summary of the rabbit-hole I started going down when that Sam Altman/OpenAI drama happened (effective altruism -> effective accelerationism -> dark enlightenment -> etc). I had no idea so much of the “elite” were that out of touch with reality before that.
Thanks for posting, this really rounds out the Blonde Politics video that has been getting around.
I feel like few people would actually consent to this new system if they knew what it was and how it worked. So how do these guys plan on forcing their post-democratic system on us?
I dont think consent applies when every lever of power is controlled by the “grab em by the pussy” and “if youre rich, they let you do it” party.
just before musk shot out the seig heil heard around the world, he was effusive about the importance of this election - precisely because this is an absolutely perfect storm of forces against democracy and for technocratic autocracy.
as for enforcing the new status quo… I see no future that does not involve state violence.
This is not a technocracy: it’s not about expertise in a given area that decides leadership, but about plutocratic autocracy. I wouldn’t say ‘the rich’ are naturally the experts.
Yeah if you take the concept at face value it doesn’t sound like the worst idea.
It would need a lot of guardrails but it’s at least better than monarchy. I’d argue it would obviously devolve into a plutocracy basically immediately but that’s better than right from the start I guess.
I agree with you in that technocracy has a lot of potential and definitely sounds appealing, but I think it’d almost have to be socialist - both to atleast somewhat prevent the plutocratic devolution you speak of, as well as halting anti-intellectualism (‘you don’t need an education’) and post-truth (like you see with American social media now).
Then again, not having a free market would also require new guardrails (how do you ensure proper distribution beyond the formal mathematics?), which makes it more complicated.
Always better than a monarchy though.
great read. a little reptitive in places, but very worthwhile.
