Part 2.7 of 5: The Human Data Cabal Series – Interlude
Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s.
Before we continue with Part 3, I need to step outside the main story for a moment. While researching background for this series, I discovered something that completely reframes everything we’ve been examining. Consider this an interlude—essential context before the story continues.
When I started this series five days ago, I thought I was documenting a straightforward influence operation. You know, surveillance contracts timed with political distractions, the four pillars of power concentration, the usual dance between technology and government. A clean, methodical analysis of current events.
But yesterday, while researching the background of the Technocracy movement of the 1930s for context, and feeling an awful lot like Edgar Allan Poe, pondering, weak and weary, as he penned “The Raven,” I fell down a rabbit hole that led me somewhere I never expected to go. What I discovered reshapes everything I thought I knew about what we’re watching unfold.
The Discovery
I had been reading something the night before that mentioned Howard Scott’s Technocracy movement from the 1930s. At its core, it was a movement of engineers and scientists who wanted to replace democracy with expert rule. It seemed like interesting historical context for modern “tech authoritarianism,” so I started digging.
The more I read, the more familiar it sounded. A charismatic leader promising efficiency over politics. A movement that attracted hundreds of thousands during the crisis. Ideas about optimization and data-driven governance that felt remarkably current. But then I found something that really knocked me back a step.
One of the leaders of Technocracy Incorporated’s Canadian branch was a man named Joshua N. Haldeman. As I read more about him, I discovered something remarkable. His daughter Maye grew up steeped in his technocratic ideals, moved to South Africa, married Errol Musk, and gave birth to Elon Musk.
I had to read that three times before it sank in.
I’m not talking about vague ideological influence here. I’m talking about a direct family line from a 1930s movement that explicitly sought to replace democratic governance with rule by technical experts to the man who has been running the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) in the Trump administration.
Something about it felt off—too clean, like a puzzle piece that fits too perfectly. So I spent the next two hours going down every rabbit hole I could find, hoping I was wrong. I had AI systems verify each claim against academic sources. I cross-referenced dates, locations, family records, and historical documents.
Every detail confirmed what I’d found.
The Pattern Beneath the Pattern
If that made my skin crawl, what I found next kept me up all night.
As I kept researching, I realized that what I’ve been documenting in real-time—the surveillance expansion, the political capture, and the misdirection tactics—isn’t just opportunistic power-grabbing. It’s the implementation phase of an ideology that’s been waiting ninety years for the technology to catch up to the ambition.
Howard Scott’s technocracy failed in 1933 because the tools didn’t exist to make it work. In 1933, governments couldn’t monitor entire populations, process unlimited data, or optimize social outcomes through algorithms. The computational infrastructure for technocratic governance was pure science fiction back then.
But today? Today we have Palantir’s AI systems processing surveillance data across federal agencies. We have algorithms that shape what billions of people see and believe. We have the technical capability to implement exactly what Scott envisioned: governance by data, optimization by experts, and minimal democratic input.
The people shaping and running these systems aren’t just blindly drifting toward technocratic outcomes. Some are quite open about their anti-democratic views. Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and Palantir Technologies, famously wrote, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” As Facebook’s first outside investor, he’s not exactly hiding his stance.
The Family Business
The genealogical connection from Joshua N. Haldeman to Elon Musk isn’t just a curiosity—it’s a through-line that explains why certain Silicon Valley figures seem so comfortable with systematically undermining democratic institutions while positioning themselves as saviors.
This isn’t a conspiracy. It’s an inheritance. It’s ideas passed down through families, professional networks, and academic circles. It’s dormant ideology finding expression when conditions become favorable.
When Musk talks about “optimizing government efficiency,” he’s not inventing new concepts. He’s expressing ideas his grandfather believed in during the Great Depression. The difference is that grandpa only had theories. Grandson has hands-on control over satellite networks, social media platforms, and government efficiency departments.
The more I thought about it, the more unsettling it became. We’re not watching someone stumble into power—we’re watching the careful cultivation of inherited ideas finally finding their moment.
Why I’m Telling You This
I’m sharing this discovery with you now because it reframes everything we’re about to examine together. The surveillance expansion I documented isn’t just opportunistic power consolidation—it’s probably infrastructure development for a very specific vision of governance.
The misdirection patterns I’ve been tracking aren’t just tactical distractions—they may very well be deployment cover for systematic transformation that’s been in the works for decades.
The political capture happening in real-time isn’t random corruption—it’s likely the methodical implementation of inherited ideology that finally has the tools to succeed where it failed before.
When we return to the main story, you’ll see current events differently. The Twitter dramas and government efficiency rhetoric aren’t the story—they’re the distraction from the story. The real action is happening in the infrastructure: surveillance systems, algorithmic control, data processing capabilities, and the gradual replacement of democratic accountability with technocratic optimization.
The Script
What chills me most about all of this is realizing that we’re not watching improvisation. We’re watching the execution of a very old script that’s been updated for modern technology. The ideological blueprint was written in the 1930s. The technical specifications were developed over decades in Silicon Valley. The political deployment is happening right now, during carefully orchestrated distractions.
This is why the timing feels so precise, why the coordination seems so sophisticated, why the misdirection works so effectively. It’s not just current opportunism—it’s the culmination of generational planning.
The technocratic inheritance didn’t disappear in 1933. It just went underground, waiting patiently for the right moment to emerge.
That moment is now.
What This Means Going Forward
Now you know what I know. When the main story continues, watch for the patterns within patterns. Notice how “government efficiency” rhetoric masks infrastructure development. See how political theater provides cover for systematic transformation.
Most importantly, remember that what looks like chaos and incompetence on the surface might be precisely organized underneath. Sometimes the most effective revolutions are the ones that don’t look like revolutions at all—they just look like optimization.
We’re living through one of those moments. The question isn’t whether this transformation will continue—it’s whether we’ll recognize it for what it is before it’s too late to respond.
The story continues in Part 3, but now you’ll be watching with different eyes.
The Human Data Cabal Series (so far):
The Human Data Cabal Series – Part 1 of 5
The Human Data Cabal Series – Part 2 of 5
BREAKING: The Four Pillars Just Went Live – Part 2.5 of 5
The Perfect Distraction: When Billionaire Drama Hides Surveillance Expansion – Part 2.6 of 5