A conversation with the owl in my mirror about politicians and technocrats

(The owl says we’re friends and he’s going to lead me to the Door.)

I’ve decided Dominic Cummings would definitely be in my ideal cabinet

Heh, not even in a particular spot.

Deciding that comes later!
Perhaps some kind of special advisor, which is what he was anyway

Does this fit the bill of a technocrat or am I misunderstanding how cabinets work?
I always figured it’s the modern version of the king’s advisers.

Re: cabinets the point of a cabinet is 1) advise and 2) implement the leader’s vision
Funnily enough, this allows room for more technocratic flavor depending on preference
Generally the actual technocratic expertise would be provided (in the american system) in the deputy official
So, Secretary of State is politcally appointed but there will be deputies and other high-ranking civil servants that actually provide the technocratic expertise
but you can always elevate one of them and this sometimes happens in “less important/prestigious” positions where you don’t need to pay of a key supporter

That sort of assumes you can always trust technocrats.
Maybe that’s why we have a deep state now.

yes well see “Yes, Minister” for an examination of this dynamic
the problem with specialists is they seek to paperclip-maximize whatever instiutional priorities and field-specific assumptions they’ve been trained for all their lives
this is, of course, how they rise in their field (that and skill at navigating bureacracy), but you see how it becomes a problem when you need to balance priorities across competing fields
i.e. all doctors become mengele when given enough power, all economists turn socieites into industrial slave labor camps…etc

There’s also the problem of technocrats being human beings and political actors.

yes, there’s also that

I mean, clearly archetypes are not a problem for me but let’s be real, everybody is a bit of everything.

lol true

I like your examples for paperclip maximizing.
Silicon Valley types want to turn humanity into a datacenter.
It’s weird to me that we even have datacenters at all. Ford said if you don’t know what you’re going to use the data for, don’t gather it.
The number of documents at these companies is obscene when you read their e-mails and learn these people are de facto illiterate.
If you have thousands of terabytes of information it’s just going to confuse people.

i beleive there’s an assumption that it’s better to accumulate large amounts of data, because even if you don’t know what you plan on doing it nor whether you’ll be able to develop algorithms capable of parsing it, it’s good to have on hand in case something new is developed

That’s exactly the attitude Ford railed against.
I’ll find the quote…

anyway, technocrats excel in specialization but not in big picture thinking, so you have to keep a tight leash on them so they don’t paperclip maximize their own personal focus into an all-consuming crusade
come to think of it, a special advisor should ideall be someone who understands this and is highly capable in organizing the technocrats into pursuing key strategic goals
re: deep state, I try to make a distinction between what I call “the adminsitrative state” (what most people call the ‘deep state”…civil servants and whatnot) and the broader ecosystem of various networks
After all, the term orginally referred to the nexus of crime, entertainment, and politics as defined by the relationships between power players in all those fields

That reminds me, I did one key insight about Politicians: they specialize in fundraising.
It’s entirely possible that the reason Technocrats need Politicians is because the money focus provides exactly the ability for balance that the Technocrat lacks.
Or rather, the money focus takes longer to become unbalanced grift.
It took 100 years for GM to become a loan shark and they still make a fair number of cars.

all good points
politicians set priorities by controlling the pruse strings

So does your definition of deep state include Steven Spielberg?

well, not quite?
does he control which politicians get put into power and which organizations priorities are put in place?
if so, then i would say yes
but my definition tends more toward: what individuals are using which institutions to decide what priorities governments will follow and which personnel will be put into key managerial roles?

Direct power, in other words.

power given to you is never truly your own

But Spielberg completely owns his soft influence.
He wouldn’t be able to throw his weight around though because it’s a nebulous sort of power that changes lots of little, distributed decisions that eventually make up the culture.
It’s also not really deep statey in the colloquial understanding. When the CIA gets into cultural subversion they do it with a sledgehammer.

which is one of the ways in studying this sort of thing gets tricky
because subtle, indirect influence over time is very muhc a type of power, but not the kind thta’s easy to measure
so, who lends pwoer to the elected officials/top civils ervents?

I think we can look at the elections of Trump and Biden for inspiration.
What we saw in 2016 and 2020 is the mainstream news media is the real government and they don’t take kindly to anyone who thinks otherwise.
At least on the front lines, they are.
And the mainstream media is almost all spooks.
So figure in broad strokes: finance > intelligence > media.
It’s convenient that they can all be summarized by lists of acronyms.
{AIPAC, etc.} > {FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.} > {NBC, CNN, FOX, ADL, etc.}
I dunno, is ADL a media outlet or an intelligence agency?

ADL doens’t seem to be something that can easily fit into one category
forward operating base seems to be the best fit

This also reminds me, I figured out a way to prove Jewish influence in two steps.
Empirically, I mean.

  1. “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”


Step 2 is one I don’t have a study on hand for, so it may be tricky.
I need a study that honestly represents Jewish donations.
For a start: https://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/US-Jews-contribute-half-of-all-donations-to-the-Democratic-party-468774
But that’s just the tip of the iceberg, I’m sure, because Paul Ryan didn’t go from rags to riches on campaign donations.

might be hard to find direct data on that
might be forced to use proxy data
but could look at donations from certain NGOs, key party donors…etc

The impression I get is it’s from insider trading.

that’s a prevelant assumption
but when you think about it, no shortage of ways if you’re creative
speaking fees, book deals…etc
plus since your job is fundraising, you spend time with people who have money and are good at using it/moving it around
it’s almost futile to figure out what trees are in the forest when you’ll never be able to list them all
i have to assume that anything that can be done eventually is done

Yeah, I hadn’t thought about that part.
If prison is a finishing school for violent criminals, then Congress is a finishing school for financial criminals.


They may not have high IQs, but they teach each other.
Viewed in that light, 99% of them look like gross underperformers.
Which makes a lot of sense.

given how these creatures get selected, i assess that it’s generally undersestimated how much they are creatures of others desries
we can hypothesize a generalized ambition without necessarily any specific focus
so if one were to enter poltiics with the goal of maximizing income/assets, they’d be relatively outperforming a lot of their peers just by dint of pursuing a deeplu-held goal

To be fair to them, I think that’s oversimplifying their motives.
What you find with sales guys is most of them are prosperity gospel types.
So while I’m sure the number of straight-up sociopaths is higher in Confgress than elsewhere, I’d bet you it’s only around 1/3.
You see this in pretty much all deep state stuff, there’s a very strong financial motive but it’s fueled by a religious ideology.
Prosperity gospel, Randianism, Nietzscheanism, Mormonism, and Judaism are the big ones.
Add to that a more fluid, more neurotypical approach to morality and you’ve got a congresscritter.
Some would say moral flexibility, others would say “nuance”.
The important thing is regardless of your reason, the game is played a certain way.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think the very competitiveness of the thing drives the fluidity.
It’s sort of like war. As soon as you follow a pattern, you’re dead.
Especially if you’re surrounded by salesmen and grifters. The predictability of other people is the water they swim in.

This is definitely a good point

I’m reminded of the guy at the strip club who used to describe people as having “handles”.
It was in the context of imagining salespeople are like rats where other people’s consistencies are the levers they press to get pellets.
Anyway, the key phrase is to think of Politicians as pellet maximizers.

yeah, that’s a good way of looking at it

Damn, I may be coming to an understanding of these guys.
The least autistic demographic.


About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to A conversation with the owl in my mirror about politicians and technocrats

  1. bicebicebice says:

    I think copy pasting chatt logs is a new low below even simping (because you stray further and further from actually catalogizing and you know it i know it everybody knows it but nobody gonna do it so whatever its a pass) but im down with this piece;

    “anyway, the key phrase is to think of Politicians as pellet maximizers.

    yeah, that’s a good way of looking at it

    Damn, I may be coming to an understanding of these guys.
    The least autistic demographic.


    …how many pellets do you get from nuking your economy and global standing vis a vis le west (a west that always hated you for being a white mongoloid-but still…).

    maybe this was chat was before the war but still (its not wrong) but now I need more update on this, what is your take?

    what proverbial pellets are putin and xi snacking on right now?

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      WW3 is unlikely because neither the US nor Russia benefits. The short version is that the US has no remaining conventional military power and Russia’s best play is to wait for the US to collapse, which costs them nothing.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Hey, I have an idea! You love the based Amish, right? Send them in, they’ll clean this up for you.


      • bicebicebice says:

        “posts cope”

        Can’t send in the amish they are too busy fighting not getting cannibalized by nigg…oh wait thats the city slickers got them mixed up sorry, yes I will get right on it and send the Shire into the zog frontline.

        When you run out of metric lines of text you revert to the same mode all americans operate on itz , a martian country on earth. thats how alien your way of thinking is, like Tex escaping the maunder minimum just to get the forcefully vacccinated in australia lmao…

        unironically in all honesty your only hope is Biden which you got by not voting again so pretend none of this ever happened and go back to worshipping mcdonalds the american dollar and israel, americans should confuse themselves with writing, thinking or even speaking

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s