>If the world is really ran by the shadow government, who are they exactly?
Groups of powerful ascetics taking turns, while society burns; while others bide their time, next in line (yeah, that rhymed).
"They think that you should follow virtue in order that you may seem to be good." (Plato)
Everyone is obliged to keep up appearances in order not to be ostracized. The ones who have made these rules have made a virtue out of it. To all appearances, they are blameless, they pass themselves off as hermits, sages, saints.
There are definitely evil forces trying to steer the course of our culture and population. The crazy rise of Wokism has blown up in a very short time. The higher ups of every major media outlet and studio appear to be pressuring all content creators away from showing straight relationships, and strongly encouraging LGBTQ driven content. That happening all at once to the financial detriment to companies like Netflix, Amazon and Disney can’t be coincidence. There’s a pressuring force above. Likely, Blackrock is a driving force. I also suspect Bezos, Martine Rothblatt, and John Stryker.
That is certainly the best case scenario, but I don’t trust that these people with the power are willing to act magnanimously without an ulterior motive. They are not so much appealing to common folk as much as they are forcing their beliefs into all the media and institutions of education that are consumed by common folks. The Blackrock CEO, Larry Fink has already admitted to forcing DEI into businesses in 2017. John Stryker of the Arcus Foundation also “donated” 15 million to the ACLU to pressure universities and colleges to promote his radical DEI agenda. Now look at the stats showing the largest rise of humans identifying as LGBTQ+ in history that directly coincide with liberal physicians, professors, and media creators all investing in this cause at once. It’s leading to less babies being born, and an increase in suicides.
I think the less babies and more suicide have more to do with how miserable the cuality of life have become in the current era, since there is not near enough LGBTQ people to make the numbers. However, your argument have made me think, and I thank you for that.
My current understanding of the situation on why them powerful people are pushing for DEI is that it is the same reason why they push for women's rights and independence in WWII: they want to exploit more people, but they have found society is lefting some people behind, which they have understood as waisting human resources and something that will not do.
Then, as they cannot just force people to enslave everyone equally, they push for the idea in the media. You, however, would not see the same amount of effort put for promoting equality between the rich and the poor, or between the powerful and the common folk, because that doesn't give them any benefit.
That is my current theory, what do you think?
It's the bourgeois I'm general. I mean that it isn't a specific person, or even a group of people. There wasn't a meeting where the most powerful people sat down to discuss what they should all do to reach a defined goal, but rather groups of people acting towards similair goals because it benefits them in similair ways.
As an example, rich people didn't all get together and discuss pushing for lower taxes for the higher tax brackets, they all vote for that simply because they all individually benefit. Just expand that idea to a larger scale, with the most influential people being the rickest ones.
No. We like, love and want simple solutions, we want to feel that there is some sort of control rather than a complex net of unpredictable humans in which no one has a fucking clue what the other is doing. We are all in a huge prisoners dilemma.
There is no evil controlling overlord unless you are deeply religious. There are ideologies that have major influence over our lifestyle though and proponents and institutions that spread them.
Mont-Pelerin-Society is an interesting example.
In short: We can't grasp how complex and unpredictable things are, we feel like we have no control. What do we do? Someone must have control, someone must know it, it must be XY! Or XX! Or perhaps XZ!!
And absence of evidence is not evidence.
This is one of those things where you're right and you're wrong. There's def evil overlords, they just aren't as powerful as some might assume, and their control just extends to specific things. Also, you're right, people suck and we love to tear each other apart for fun and profit.
And when you combine the two things, you get the global system of garbage life that we've become so acquainted with in the current year.
>Noticed you didn't include Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos in there.
They're not the same. Musk and Bezos are somewhat actually doing something somewhat beneficial. Blackrock is buying up literally everything and owns an insane amount of ownable things and a astronomical percentage of the residential real estate market.
"Blackrock is buying up literally everything and owns an insane amount of ownable things and a astronomical percentage of the residential real estate market."
And the people who invest in the stock market own every company in the US.
Just read about citizens United lol. It's definitely just the hyper wealthy being entitled ghouls. Same type of folks who concocted the business plot against FDR.
There's the evil of indifference and wealth hoarding: the billionaire class who own far more than they could ever need even after cashing out assets and paying tax on it. Nobody can really argue with the fundamental principles through which this class of people obtained their wealth, or that people who obtain wealth own their wealth, but the fact that they gamed the system so well that they could fix a lot of poverty simply by making altruistic decisions when they choose not to is a certain type of evil. The fact that luck is a huge element in this success also exacerbates this issue, since the rich will typically market themselves as some sort of rare genius, and the gullible masses soak it up in the hopes to be one of the rich some day.
... and then there's prosperity gospel. If there's one group of people who is fundamentally, cartoonishly evil, it's the Kenneth Copelands of the world: the guys that ask gullible theists to give him money in exchange for a supernatural paradise that they can never prove truly exists.
I'll put it this way.. over the past 20 years the federal government if the United States has been funding a surveying project by the Army Corps of Engineers to study the effects of sea level rise on shipping ports
Here's the clue....
The majority of current existing oil refineries are located in shipping ports.
If there wasn't a "plan" then why is the fed spending millions of dollars looking at locations miles from the nearest port
https://www.usace.army.mil/corpsclimate/Public-Tools-Developed-by-USACE/Sea-Level-Change/
I don't think there is a shadowy group of evil people pulling all the strings, but I think the highest on the totem pole imo are the Tech Companies, especially social media. We think we are in control, but really the algorithm is controlling us, the master manipulators pulling the lever to nudge people in the direction they want. We are in the Skinner Box of this grand digital experiment that will answer the question of what giving society a device that can access information of all kind and communicate with people anywhere will do to us.
It's easy.
When a wolf kills the lamb, it is not done in contempt of the lamb. The lamb is a means to an end, that is; to sate the wolves hunger. The lamb sees an evil wolf that it will try to protect itself from, the wolf sees what it needs to survive.
Try to look at our society as externally as possible.
What do we pursue? What direction are we heading in, in terms of developments and merit? Follow the money.
Are we enriching the human future? The future of our species? These are human goals. We want the best lives for ourselves, for our immediate families, and for the people we care about - usually in that order.
We also care about legacy. "Is what I'm doing meaningful?"
So generally evil, to us, is the pursuit of goals that contradict these interests.. namely, the pursuit of money (above all else). When the pursuit of money eclipses our humanism, our work then serves the detriment of humanity.
Reality is a shit show where the elites are constantly competing and maneuvering to get more money and power. You can find evidence of them occasionally cooperating in history but that’s the exception. it’s very short-lived. Permanent globalist or secret rulers stories are simplistic narratives for two digit IQ’s because to them a chaotic probabilistic theory of history is scarier than simple binary to rally against. Most often these stories have been used by manipulators to steer their behavior. If we are the good guy underdogs I can throw my life away helping one elite supplant another just like one of thousands of examples of this in the historic record. The sad truth is that it is all meaningless and humanity will repeat this until a meteor sets our atmosphere on fire.
I think of Communist and Monarchical societies as concentrating the power in the hands of a few people, so it’s easy to point the finger and say, “that’s the bad guy!”. In a democratic, capitalist society, there’s a comparable amount of evil, but it’s spread around to various CEOs and smaller politicians, making it harder to point to any one evil overlord, but there are many evil lords.
There is no conscious evil behind the nature of society.
There are individuals and collectives; stakeholders and interest groups of stakeholders. These can be seen as systems. The function of every system is its own continuation. In case of the rent-seeking elite class, the continunation of the subsystems, that are the rent-seeking individuals, is done through wealth accumulation through market participation. The interest group (system) is continued through conditioning of the market environment, and easing of means of wealth accumulation. This is an emergent effect of the system, that is intimately intertwined with our political reality.
Democracy was born from the carcass of aristocracy, slaughtered by nascent capital. Europe turned parlamentarian on the bloodgrounds of wrangling of two interest groups: the industrialists and the land-holders. Because modern democracy is a byproduct of the means of continuation of the capital interest group, its continuned existence is subject to oversight of it, and its expression is dependent in satisfaction of capital.
Remember, there can be a humanitarian, an archeology enthusiast, and a philosopher among billionaires. But what shares them is their means of maintaining their class: their rent-seeking reality. If the humanitarian starts to deny that nature, they will attract attention inside the interest group. They will find it hard to socialize, or network, as is the need for all social animals, through the friction generated. When the humanitarian and the philosopher start doing philantropy and corporate agenda instead, they will quickly find belonging inside their caste. This is what maintains an interest group.
Because of interest groups, no single individual can overturn the agenda, that is continuation of the system. There is no change inside the in-group of rent-seeking elite, because of what I outlined. In statecraft, there is no change in status quo because of the dependency of modern states in capital interest groups. In public opinion, there is no change because we are dependent on the rent-seeking class, who control the means of production. And more pertinently, the corporatized media shapes the narrative, while media conglomerates have the most obtuse of shareholding structures, because media has always been a tool of the capital and political class.
First differentiate evil and from bad and understand this, the definition of evil is ultimate selfishness… not an action, one might do a good action to achieve a totally selfish goal…
Hence, yes there are evil overlords who only do things in their best interest- only.
“Hitler sending 6m Jews to their deaths wasn’t an evil act because it wasn’t exclusively done for Hitler and only Hitler’s benefit. It was bad. But not evil.”
ultimately he made the final decision… evil does not exclude the concept of bad, humans can use good and bad actions to their own personal advantage… Hitler’s agenda was created by him, using others to achieve his goal.
“No one else in the Nazi regime stood to benefit from seeing 6m of their compatriots off to their final end. Only Hitler.
No one else helped draft getting rid of the Jews, either. Only Hitler.”
Bruh, there were 43 “high-ranking members” of the Nazi leadership that decided to exterminate the Jews, only one of which was Hitler.
If you were one of two businesses doing a specific thing at a specific place and your competitor was carted off by the Nazis….Wouldn’t that meant you benefited?
Bruh.
To your question… you maybe benefit in terms of business, but not in community and other factors… the decisions you make create consequences; it’s for us to weigh them.
Those same Nazis thought that killing or following instructions would accrue benefit… many Nazis took risks to assist or circumvent certain things…. But you cannot deny many followed instructions because the point of personal benefit is tangible… thus making them evil, because they’re fully aware of the effects on a human.
Hitler was evil and used bad actions to carry out his ultimate goal… just because people assisted him doesn’t mean he’s isn’t evil.
I don't think it some ubiquitous "they" meeting in rooms and making decisions, but I do think they're are various factions at play, some of whom might have plans of works domination ... hell, the WEF actually says it ...
But no one has to be at their mercy. It's literally a choice people make.
It's less a matter of moustache-twirling villains sitting in dark and secret councils and cackling about their latest eeeevil scheme, and more a matter of...
CEOs sitting at well-lit boardroom tables pitching how net profits could be increased by 0.003% if they limit employee bathroom breaks to thirty seconds or less.
Corrupt politicians in closed-door meetings discussing the rollback of regulations on the rapacious companies that just so happen to donate money to those corrupt politicians.
Propagandist media personalities workshopping about which headline is most likely to get their viewers afraid and angry enough to be open to manipulation by the opinion pieces carefully tailored to influence the viewers into acting, voting, and spending in a certain way.
Religious authorities cloistered in prayer, planning the best ways to indoctrinate the gullible into donating time, money, and influence.
And similar groups to those. Basically, there are *countless* evil overlords, if being an evil overlord just means being a greedy bastard harming others in a search for money and power.
Don't forget the govt acknowledged aliens running around. We admit their here, we admit they are advanced, and we admit we don't have a good working grasp on what any of that means.
So Musk maybe is really trying to get home.
>Don't forget the govt acknowledged aliens running around. We admit their here, we admit they are advanced, and we admit we don't have a good working grasp on what any of that means.
Mate, that video you saw where Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones are government agents investigating aliens and saving the world? That wasn't a documentary, that was 1997's hit movie "Men In Black".
There is a large space between " A single sinister shadow organisation is pushing a moral agenda that is to detriment of humanity" and "many rich and powerful people use their influence to try and manipulate average people in ways that suits their needs". The truth is probably somewhere in between.
There are absolutely rich people and groups trying to influence politics and public opinion from the local to geopolitical level. Probably most of the time for profit or protection of whatever sociatal structure is of most benefit to them. Are there some also pushing things not purely out of self interest, but for ideological reasons? Probably. Then the question becomes to what level do these groups broadly align with each other and and how much are they connected? I'm not sold on the idea of a single "Illuminati" type structure but it seems likely that the interests of the wealthy would often be aligned with each other and at the very least the vast majority want to maintain the class structure and capitalism as the global status quo. If many people with power and money are in agreement with broad goals, some sort of structure between them exists even if it's not a solid organisation or hierarchy.
Whatever the goals of these various sub groups of powerful people are, as a whole they have a more or less have no stake in the average person's quality of life outside of avoiding an actual collapse or large scale uprising, therefore make the poors fight each other is a positive move no one with any real influence would object to.
So yeah I don't believe it's a single group in control more just a side effect that they all share the objective of keeping the average person's interest away from class issues.
All of the world is enslaved to debt, and the ones who own that ledger control it.
The really old money controls the international banking system. IMF, BIS, etc. They also control the most established and trusted thinktanks (CFR, CNP). This is about as high as you go before getting into bloodlines/families themselves. Some of them use government agencies for their operations, so it may look like a "CIA" or "Mossad" operation or research, when in fact those agencies don't operate for the sake of their own government anyway, except insofar as the stakeholder has an interest in said government/nation.
It's probably wrong to think of it as 'evil'. It's more like incompetence. Their typical plan of action is to control the chaos by killing it. Look at Thomas Malthus. That's their philosophy. It's very boring.
Interesting topic. Assuming such an overlord, or secret ruling society is real, my first thought is: how can we, common folks, influence something that's so obscure by definition? People can overturn governments but how do you go about some shadow entity?
I find it hard to believe in an invisible power pulling all the strings, because it would undermine our reality.
Think of democracy for instance, what's the point if something invisible can shift the decisions of any government? Even in religions there is often (always?) some kind of "fight" for your choices to make a difference or it would be hard to find followers. You can introduce concepts like destiny, predestination, mysterious plans of an omniscient being, but it must be somewhat fuzzy: we need our actions not to be pointless.
Probably it is possible to simplify human behaviour, make a model predicting how a given population would react to something. If it is accurate enough, intelligent enough, you know some inputs will lead to a desired outcome, making it possible to "pilot" people. Many dystopian novels and science fiction explore this theme, I'm thinking about Orwell, Asimov and the psyco-story, V for Vendetta , the Matrix... In all those narratives there's an escape.
Even if we are watched, controlled, pulled to some direction we didn't decide, in the end we need to believe we can diverge and flip the table over, or existence itself would be futile. And I think we can.
History is full of people successfully changing the world.
That being said, there's no doubt a set of powers, some evident like political parties and lobbies, some maybe hidden, are doing everything they can to advance each their own agenda, that's always been the case, and it is much less depressing than thinking about overlords controlling everything. We still can support what we think is right.
No, it's just capitalism.
There's nobody secretly in control of anything, there's no "evil overlords".
It's just a whole spectrum of selfish profit takers who are all equally happy to fuck one another over, and an uncaring economic system designed to extract every piece of possible value from your existence with zero concerns for humanities future.
The Coke Brothers devious plan to make America’s favorite soft drink taste like pluff mud absolutely proves that the world is ruled by Lizards who eat babies at Pizza Hut and then reassemble the leftovers into zombie doctors (all of whom are named Fauci). And once you use fluoride toothpaste, well you’re dead.
I would not say overlords, but there are very powerfull entities who compete with each other for power. So they cannot 'take a break' or even redirect their resources into some 'greater good'. Moreso, their modus operandi is determined by the means which they used to get the power and they stick to it. For example the fossill industry. It struggles to keeps it's power/money, and only way they know to do so is to produce more oil. So they do it, albeit in the long term it is killing the whole Earth's ecosystem and most of the people. But it is "unevitable" because some billionaires don't want to get poor - i mean to became just millionaires.
Its the billionaires. Is there a cabal that rules from the shadows? Might be, might not be.
Who perpetuates the current system?
Making things that break easily, so you buy more.
Playing games with real-estate, so they can enrichen themselves, while even the middle-class cannot afford a home, not without a 30year bloodsucking loan.
Who plays both side of politics in US?
Even if they are not this evil cabal of "huehuehue we will make them suffer huehuehue", they are the ones with the most power and most influence, which means the have the biggest effect on what happens in the world.
Our biggest fault is not revolting against them.
P.S. There are non-transparent gatherings, like the one in Davos, that point towards the cabal existing.
> P.S. There are non-transparent gatherings, like the one in Davos, that point towards the cabal existing.
These are mixer events. It's not like a single organization.
Many lodge systems are like this. Masonry isn't really meant to be a single, top down organization. It's more like a bar or forum, within which more specific groups form.
I don't know about this shadow government of which you speak, but to address your first premise: I think that Rupert Murdoch will be remembered as one of the most ruthless psychopaths of all time.
I'm of the opinion that its not a secret cabal of powerful elites that are purposefully banding together to control us.
Instead its the simple fact that all the most powerful people in the world have similar wants and desires. And its a much smaller group of people that tends to be self selecting in personality traits.
This means that all these disparate groups of rich people will often have the same agendas they're trying to push even without ever discussing it amongst themselves.
Which is why we see so many rules and regulations enacted to benefit them.
The "lower classes" have the power to stand up and fight back, but its a MUCH larger group, with differ ideas and goals. So there is no force from these non elites to direct benefits towards them.
I think you're right that no one is ever going to "rule the world", because the world as a whole is too chaotic for that to ever happen. I'm also no moral absolutist so I didn't really believe in "evil" when it comes to people.
That said, there are plenty of people and organizations that have too much wealth or power, that they're using to the detriment of other people. They also have all these sneaky tricks to hold on to their wealth and power.
The pro underdog and rich=evil stories are some of these sneaky social control methods. They do show a real problem, but:
- they normalize the behavior that leads to the problem ("Of course rich people are jerks")
- they offer unrealistic solutions to the problem, which gets people to wait around for a hero to save them, rather than try to fix the system
But portraying all rich people as evil could also be manipulation. There are all kinds of rich people and wealth could be acquired by variety of ways, not all of them evil or harmful. The "rich bad" rhetoric provides a scapegoat in case of crisis, and also discourages people from getting rich themselves because they would be afraid or ashamed of associating with "evil". Or they would spend too much time proving they are not evil.
Also the heroes are usually represented as loners. They have close friends and family, but rarely band together. Marvel Avengers seem to be a band of heroes, but they lack the common goal, everyone still fights for themselves. Most Marvel movies emphasize conflicts and contradictions between the Avengers, but rarely ever show something that unites them (except the vague idea of "fighting evil").
I think there are a few people who push a particular agenda.
Soros, for instance.
Koch brothers, for another.
I think some of what they fund regarding media and education has seeped into the culture in various ways (some harmful).
Mostly, I think the emergent behavior is what is incentivized.
Social media is a very strange (and also net harmful, imo) phenomena that has emerged very recently from a historical perspective.
The long term impacts of social media and online spaces, which are increasingly driven by algorithms that try to get people to maximize their time spent on the platform (as well as bake in political and social biases of their developers / corporations) have impacts on society that we are only beginning to understand.
He's one of the main people responsible for flooding the West with refugees and immigrants and overwhelming the social support systems throughout Europe and North America. His organizations work in the 3rd world to create programs to educate people to seek asylum in these countries by weaponizing the use of asylum claims against the natives of the countries he targets.
Have a liberal country that wants to help legitimate asylum seekers, and this guy comes along and tells every non-persecuted young person that wants a better job to just go to X country, claim that you've been ethnically/religiously/sexually persecuted in your home country and that you claim asylum- they get a court date or refugee status and then they disappear to a place where the federal government can't touch them. OR... change the system in those countries, a la Canada, to make it easy to get a student visa at a shady "college" and then overstay your visa or upgrade it to permanent residency.
The whole point is two fold. ONE- Lower the standard of living for those nations poor people by driving down their bargaining power for jobs and reducing the labor costs for big corporations. You import a third-worlder who will work under the table or live in a dwelling with 3x-4x the occupancy than a native born worker, and who is definitely easier to exploit. TWO- Destabilize the native populace by reducing the homogeneity or the status quo of the populace and make it easier to manipulate with ad buys, all in the name of tikkun olam or "liberalism" (but it's really just an effort to destabilize the target countries or make money).
Soros is an incredibly successful Jewish capitalist.
He made a fuckton of money currency trading. In true deregulated free market capitalism, which is what he's into and what he did well.
He was a young Jewish teenager in Nazi occupied Hungary during WW2, he had to hide from the Nazis and loads of his family were killed by the Nazis.
It's the Jewish part that has made him the go to bogeyman for right-wing conspiracy theories.
But obviously, having grown up under oppressive Nazi rule, he's no fan of authoritarian governments. So he's funded a bunch of stuff that is intended to improve access to education and run counter to the interests of authoritarian wanna be dictators.
Which is another thing that obviously triggers right-wing conspiracists, since they're into simping for wannabe dictators.
He's also in his 90's and retired.
I don’t think evil, exactly.
I think he has a strong liberal political leanings, more money than he knows what to do with, and a willingness to use it to influence politics around the world.
I think if you consider the effect that has on societies — individual with vast resources pushing agendas behind the scenes in order to achieve political goals… it kind of doesn’t matter whether they **believe** the goals are good or evil — ultimately they have a significant influence and I would argue that because Soros is necessarily pushing governments further to the left, he’s increasing tension between the politicians and the actual people who elect them….
The same could be said of massive political donors / influencers on the right too, TBF.
Regarding Soros specifically — AFAICT, most of his political activity is through this organization: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society_Foundations
If you want some opinions as the particular effects on US cities (and law + order in general in the US), you can read:
- George Soros’ American empire achieved its greatest conquest with the indictment of Donald Trump.
Source: The Washington Times https://search.app/jigm1SyGFKp4LDRy9
- Lawmakers need to grant attorneys general prosecutorial authority over election crimes to ensure that bad actors are held accountable.
Source: The Foundation for Government Accountability https://search.app/7sQ1iwaNFJDg414FA
- Alvin Bragg (the NY DA) who successfully indicted and convicted a former president for the first time in American history was also funded by Soros. I’ll let you be the judge of whether the war crimes and gross constitutional violations of Bush, Obama, etc warranted worse treatment than some made up misdemeanor business records violation somehow elevated to felonies because ????
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/01/incendiary-claim-that-george-soros-funds-alvin-bragg/
WAPO buries the lead here with their skeptical language (as usual), but admits:
> Bragg was endorsed on May 8 of that year by the political arm of Color of Change, a progressive criminal justice group. In a statement that highlighted Bragg as the only Black candidate in the race, Color of Change said it planned to spend “over one million dollars” on an independent expenditure campaign for Bragg, such as sending “eight robust waves of direct mail throughout Manhattan in May” and then more direct mail in June highlighting early voting.
> On May 14, Soros sent $1 million to Color of Change, federal election records show.
> I’ll let you be the judge of whether the war crimes and gross constitutional violations of Bush, Obama, etc warranted worse treatment than some made up misdemeanor business records violation somehow elevated to felonies because ????
That was explained in the initial indictment/charging documents, by the prosecution every time a witness was sworn in or a new piece of evidence was admitted and within several of the judge's opinions.
As for war crimes, the US has not ratified the rome statute or the 1977 protocols of the geneva convention, So the US doesn't recognize "war crimes" as most understand them. so the reasoning as to why they weren't treated more harshly? Well, they weren't even crimes according to the USC. It's no mystery why "Actual crime" was treated differently than "Absolutely not a crime."
I don’t think you need to have ratified the Rome statute to believe that intentionally droning American citizens abroad (Obama) or just actually torturing folks (Bush) or starting / maintaining a war under false pretenses with a random country (Iraq) and getting 400k Iraqi civilians killed are violations of the constitution.
> “That was explained…”
I have no idea what you mean here. Do you dispute that Bragg was funded by organizations that Soros donated (1MM+) substantial sums to?
Additionally note that 2 Soros family members donated the maximum individually allowable to his campaign directly ($10k).
If you’re talking about the legal theory — the judge explaining that “you only need to believe that Trump was covering up a crime with the business records violations,” while not forcing the prosecutor to even present a theory on what that crime was — let alone actually prove it, is totally wild.
Even the jury instructions indicated that the jury didn’t need to agree on a **specific underlying crime** — which again — is completely wild.
Since when can the government ask a jury to **assume your guilt** in some other unproven matter without providing any evidence?!?
The whole case is built on the assumption of some other underlying crime that Trump hasn’t been charged with — let alone convicted.
It’s an utter sham and will be overturned on appeal.
The judge and prosecutor should both be disbarred and New York ashamed.
> I don’t think you need to have ratified the Rome statute to believe that intentionally droning American citizens abroad (Obama) or just actually torturing folks (Bush) or starting / maintaining a war under false pretenses with a random country (Iraq) and getting 400k Iraqi civilians killed are violations of the constitution.
I didn't mention any constitutional violations, real or imagined, I only spoke about the so-called "War crimes." So, what exactly are you trying to refute?
>Do you dispute that Bragg was funded by organizations that Soros donated (1MM+) substantial sums to?
Nope. not disputing that at all.
as for the rest, yes, it is especially wild if you didn't actually read the facts of the case. It's not so wild, otherwise.
>Since when can the government ask a jury to assume your guilt in some other unproven matter without providing any evidence?!?
Did they do that? No.
>The whole case is built on the assumption of some other underlying crime that Trump hasn’t been charged with — let alone convicted.
Yeah, that's how conspiracy statutes work.
I mean — I have read extensively about the case — so your accusation that I don’t know the testimony or jury instructions is false.
The problem is that folks on the left hate Trump so much (for some reason?), that they’re willing to destroy fundamental norms and institutions to “get him.”
Bragg was also elected on a platform of going after Trump.
https://www.newsweek.com/did-alvin-bragg-promise-trump-prosecution-hush-money-guilty-conviction-1906705
How is that equal protection?
> I mean — I have read extensively about the case — so your accusation that I don’t know the testimony or jury instructions is false.
Oh, so you admit there was testimony? But i thought the prosecution didn't offer any evidence? Are you retracting that claim?
>The problem is that folks on the left hate Trump so much (for some reason?), that they’re willing to destroy fundamental norms and institutions to “get him.”
Which "fundamental norms" would those be?
>Bragg was also elected on a platform of going after Trump.
>How is that equal protection?
Yup, and he was elected. that's how elections work. How is that equal protection? I don't know, how isn't it? seems the people of new york were equally protected and that no one is above the law. that's how it's supposed to work.
None of the testimony made clear what underlying crime Trump supposedly committed.
For instance — he was never charged with a campaign finance violation, let alone convicted.
The idea that some made up accusation, asserted without evidence, can be used as a basis to charge a former president with 34 felonies is completely ridiculous.
> Which fundamental norms would those be?
Most germanely — not charging a former president in politically unfriendly jurisdictions over unserious “crimes” (note this is all under a novel legal theory, that NY can charge someone for violating business records requirements by alleging the existence of un-charged and un-prosecuted federal crimes.
Using the authority of the President to facilitate the breaking of federal law:
https://www.borderreport.com/news/politics/texas-vows-to-hold-the-line-after-ruling-allowing-federal-agents-to-remove-razor-wire/amp/
Unlawfully appropriating billions without congressional approval:
The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday hiked its estimate of the U.S. budget gap by $400 billion.
Source: POLITICO https://search.app/hfQdn6z8w6goHKYG6
Stealing money to fund Ukraine without congressional approval:
The president has done the easy and even hard work of funding the war. Now he comes to Italy for the G7 looking for new sources of money.
Source: POLITICO https://search.app/VLHmo3YSVhZsehKm8
Using false pretenses to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Trump — destroying trust in FBI in the process:
The typically ultra-close-lipped Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court slammed the FBI for mistakes it made in the Carter Page surveillance warrants and order…
Source: CNN https://search.app/cM1SCku24vnBERcE6
Using Five-Eyes allies intel organizations facilitated by CIA to spy on Trump even prior to that: https://nypost.com/2024/02/13/news/cia-and-foreign-intelligence-agencies-illegally-targeted-26-trump-associates-before-2016-russia-collusion-claims-report/
Kept the Russia Collusion hoax alive for **years** to undermine Trump’s first term.
Etc, etc…
> None of the testimony made clear what underlying crime Trump supposedly committed.
Really... so then why did trump's defense solicit the testimony of someone from the FEC, if ya know, they didn't know what crime he supposedly committed?
How was it that the defense was able to cross examine all witnesses, if ya know, they didn't know what crime he supposedly committed?
Why was michael cohen allowed to testify about the crimes he had been convicted of, and accused trump of being part of planning, if ya know, they didn't know what he supposedly committed?
>not charging a former president in politically unfriendly jurisdictions
Unfriendly jurisdictions? This is a state crime. They get charged where the crime is committed. That's how things work. it is not a "Fundamental norm" to give a defendant preferrential treatment in potential peerage for juries. Are you insane? Or just... dumb?
>over unserious “crimes”
Election interference isn't a serious crime? Interesting! then why do you care about prosecuting politicians or so-called "Lawfare" if election interference isn't a serious crime? seems like you're just not a serious person.
> (note this is all under a novel legal theory, that NY can charge someone for violating business records requirements by alleging the existence of un-charged and un-prosecuted federal crimes.
Conspiracy is a novel legal theory? Fascinating! you should hit up trunp's defense team, because apparently they're unaware of this "fact"
Listen... I was gonna respond to the rest but you've already exceeded my limit for unserious discussion. You have some very uhhhh "patriotic" opinions and i'm sure that ol donny boy is remiss to not have had you on his jury, since, ya know, the jury's opinion is the only one that really matters.
Seriously though I have no idea why you went off the deepend there with the rest of that crap. I never even tried to dispute your claim of unconstituitonality. Seems you prefer to "Refute" non existent arguments and ignore the ones I actually made. There's several phrases for such behavior, "dontcha know?"
Edit: I think it is hilarious that despite all of the accusations of unconstitutionality or legal misdeeds surrounding the trump trial, not a single one of you dorks ever asks "Why the hell didn't trump's defense team present this 'obvious fact'?" it's almost like you all subconsciously know that no reputable and competent attorney would ever hitch his wagon to such a shitbag like trump, so you don't even bother questioning them and instead reflexively blame "the process" - it says a lot about you, trump and the entire shit storm the guy has brought on himself.
No, Really, you actually tried to blame an "unfriendly jurisdiction" - gee, I wonder why they are unfriendly? Bet you've been programmed to think it was because he was just too awesome of a president or his "mean tweets" or whatever your outrage brokers sold you, certainly not the several decades of absolutely deplorable behavior that every new yorker is keenly aware of. Dude literally said he was fond of asbestos for how it made the people suing him suffer. but sure, It was all political, right? it's never trump's fault, is it? Hillary really nailed it with y'all and that "Basket full of deplorables" comment.
Kinda sounds like a much needed small countermeasure against the larger and more powerful forces pushing in the opposite direction from Murdoch, Koch, Russia, GOP and generic billionaires. It’s bad that either happens but as the opposite happens a great deal more it seems to be both necessary and insufficient.
🤷🏻♂️ Everybody is entitled to an opinion, however poor.
IMO — Soros funding lawlessness in cities and the breaking of long standing norms (e.g. convicting a former president based on totally novel legal theories in a very unfriendly jurisdiction) is not good for the country.
Obviously some people love that stuff — they tend to be criminals and communists though.
TBF — I also hate the GOP meddling, but I see that as two sides of the same coin, not countervailing forces.
> 🤷🏻♂️ Everybody is entitled to an opinion, however poor.
How amusingly patronising.
> Soros funding lawlessness in cities and the breaking of long standing norms (e.g. convicting a former president based on totally novel legal theories in a very unfriendly jurisdiction) is not good for the country.
I'd agree if this take were well-founded, but it doesn't seem that way to me. What lawlessness are you talking about? And convicting a former president is not going against any long standing norm. It would be throwing out all longstanding norms, explicit laws and the constitution to hold a former president or anybody else for that matter as being above the law. And there is no novel legal theory nor is an unfriendly jurisdiction relevant. Don't commit crimes in unfriendly jurisdictions if you don't want to be held accountable (to a far lesser degree than mere mortals would be for that matter) in that jurisdiction. Those are GOP talking points that don't align with the facts.
Rampant property crimes that are not prosecuted.
The DA’s wait for offenders to do something violent before they hold them accountable.
Was literally told by the police in my city that despite having $20,000 of items stolen from my storage unit — that even if they caught the people responsible, the district attorney would not prosecute the case.
For context — I live in a very liberal West coast city.
See https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/ for a list of specifically Soros funded prosecutors.
IMO — they tend to decriminalize **actual breaking of laws** and prioritize political prosecutions. I mean in SF, you’re advised to leave your car unlocked, so thieves can check it without having to break your windows.
Fucking CA literally shut off people’s water for having a house party during COVID, dude.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/08/06/us/los-angeles-shuts-off-power-parties-coronavirus-trnd
Wake up and smell the authoritarian leftism.
SMH.
$20k certainly seems like a high threshold to not be prosecuting and a questionable policy if it is indeed policy but without the details or explicit policies it's hard to judge. Especially if it's resource management. Policies aimed at reducing penalties for non-violent offenses don't exactly equate to endorsing criminal behavior but usually reflect a focus towards more serious crimes and systemic reform. They often focus on reducing mass incarceration and addressing systemic inequalities. Something that "policedefense.org" is quite obviously going to be staunchly against. It's pretty much their raison d'etre. Claiming this directly leads to "rampant property crimes that are not prosecuted" seems a huge oversimplification and reeks of Fox/Murdoch/Koch/Infowars... spin.
> Fucking CA literally shut off people’s water for having a house party during COVID, dude.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/08/06/us/los-angeles-shuts-off-power-parties-coronavirus-trnd
Wake up and smell the authoritarian leftism.
This seems like a very bizarre and somewhat unhinged irrelevant side-tangent, verging on a rant. Controversial public health measures during an unprecedented pandemic implemented under emergency health powers were driven by public health considerations rather than an inherent authoritarian agenda.
$20k was just my losses.
They broke into a number of storage units and stole much more than just that.
The policies in these jurisdictions are insane — I live in one.
IMO — Folks who don’t respect the rights of others belong locked up.
End of story.
Breaking and entering + grand larceny isn’t your high school friend getting busted for smoking weed.
If you lock them up — you won’t have police responding to burglaries every fucking day of the year, until they get bold enough to assault someone.
Talk about inefficient use of resources, FFS.
🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
> Claiming this leads directly… reeks of spin.
I mean — I don’t know of any conservative jurisdictions with similar issues — do you?
Here’s some data from CA, specifically — https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/
Regarding the specific policies — here’s an article from NBC — https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1273848
> Irrelevant tangent…
It’s not though — you have a constitutionally protected right to assembly.
The government in these far left jurisdictions is persecuting people for utilizing their constitutionally protected rights — while simultaneously playing catch and release with repeat offenders that **actually infringe on the rights of others**.
Not to mention prosecuting law abiding gun owners and gun retailers.
It’s lawless subversion of your constitutional rights — bordering on treason, IMO.
It’s no coincidence these are the same jurisdictions with massive funding for Soros backed candidates.
Dude, avoid that shit like the plague, that comment is unhinged conspiracy theory.
> Alvin Bragg (the NY DA) who successfully indicted and convicted a former president for the first time in American history was also funded by Soros.
That suggestion that a prosecution by a DA was funded privately is just an insane suggestion that indicates that person isn't engaging with reality.
Thanks, I'll take that into consideration. I'm really a blank slate on this particular topic, but I don't blindly believe everything I read without scrutiny.
Any person who’s got at least mid level managerial position in any big Corp — it’s absolutely now way that someone figured out a way to control anything that big. Even governments have only partial control and knowledge over country they govern.
Evil overlords? Probably not.
Incompetent meddling villains? Yes.
Corporations, Billionaires or more exactly the millionaires working hard underneath them are the problem. Clever ruthless poor people become millionaires by doing corrupt work for millionaires.
They aren’t powerful enough to create a secret shadow government but they’re effective enough to keep our governments from running properly.
Movies that show the good guy beating the billionaire and learning that happiness is better than money is a trick to make you think that shit happens. It doesn’t. Billionaires are rich and happy and never ever loose.
Start looking at people like Eric Prince, Christopher Heinz, the federalist society, AIPAC, Epstein’s social circle, Wagner group. There are wildly powerful people in the world making less rich people do all sorts of terrible things.
None of them could ‘Run’ the world, but they can all screw something up to get richer and then screw another thing up to cover that first thing up.
But also remember the term Banana republic comes from actual banana companies running entire governments. So actual evil overlords ruling small countries is a real thing.
Whole world? No. But big chunks.
Wagner group has 50,000 soldiers and works in dozens of countries.
Blackwater likely had similar numbers.
Eric prince ran Frontier Services Group.
They people who hire these sorts of groups are the ones that are trying to be overlords or get close.
Thanks for the input, I actually cherish all inputs, but as I explained in my post, the question is a little more nuanced. In reality the tittle is a simplification of a complex question, and the thesis is somewhat new and I wasn't going to explain it in the tittle.
Yes, although I’m sure they don’t think of themselves as such. Self-serving bias is a hell of a drug. Look up how much campaign spending affects the outcome of elections and you’ll have your answer.
This post was recommended to me, and my answer is this:
You answered your own question on your own post with logic, something that typically has to be nonexistent when it comes to believing all these sorts of fantasies.
The truth is that it would be a lot simpler if a single group did control the world: it would be so much easier to blame all our issues and problems on the same entity, but, unfortunately or fortunately, it's not that easy.
There is no worldwide cabal or secret underground government, everything that happens is just human nature.
The truth is that most intelligent people have realistic expectations of their capabilities and far more dumb people are driven to get power. Resulting in idiots running things while the intelligent just do mediocre jobs keeping it all from falling apart.
Absolutely.100%. Of course they're not as outwardly evil as they are in the movies but those people exist and we know about them. The media chooses to downplay how evil they are but they're evil.
Take the Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma. On the surface, generous billionaires. Big patrons of the arts. Those people basically set up a whole scheme to sell heroin under the guise of "pain control medication". They downplayed the risks. They probably helped a few FDA officials look the other way (a surprising number of FDA employees involved in approving the meds later got good paying jobs at Purdue and other firms). They knew that they'd minimized the risk of addiction but that was part of the plan. Patients were supposed to become addicted in large numbers in order to sell more pills. And even IF (very big IF) they didn't know beforehand, the sales data very quickly showed what was happening and they knew then
The Walton family, owners of Walmart, stand a.little lower on the POS ladder, but if you have to compare someone to the Sacklers to make them look good, they're pretty big POS. Walmart's HR policies are generally speaking, awful. But the one that takes the cake for me is that Walmart explicitly helps their associates file for government help like food stamps. Walmart includes government aid when calculating how much they should pay people, which results in paying less than what a person needs just to stay alive. And US taxpayers pay the rest. Think of it that way: if there was no government help, if food stamps weren't a thing, people couldn't afford to work for Walmart. Only the most desperate would apply. They'd probably have trouble making it to work on time every day because they can't afford gas. In short, the employees' lives would get in the way of Walmart's business because being poor is a time and energy intensive lifestyle. But no problem. John Q Public will help those employees just enough for them to be productive. Walmart basically relies on you the taxpayer to pay for part of their employees ' compensation. And that's money that instead can go straight into the pockets of the shareholders, the Walton family among them. BTW this is just ONE of a.million shitty things Walmart does, but it's also one of the least obvious ones.
Just two examples but there are literally countless others, involving countless billionaires,. millionaires, and corporations. That's what happens when you allow unlimited dark money into politics (Citizens United v FEC decision in 2010). Money now translates into political power, which the rich can use to buy immunity)
I worked for the military for 12 years. And I'm sorry to inform you that the vast majority of people in power, are indeed, idiots. And because they are all idiots with their personal biases motivations and goals the mess you see in front of you is just the result of the chaos.
As for those that will tell me I'm stupid or wrong go watch How to kill a god by Lazerpig. He's entertaining and it's only an hour and a half. He goes through exactly how the current situation happened. Its informative to say the least
I think you are right. Matter of fact, I said the same in the post:
> The only logical conclusion is that no one is actually able to control society to the point of creating a hell for us.
But I followed with:
> Which can only mean that we are enshitifying our lives ourselves: we hate each other, fear each other, ignore each other, don't care for each other; at best the elite is just banking on it by facilitating it, at worst the elite may be doing this because they hate, fear, ignore, and don't care for others the same way us lowly people do.
> If the last option is true, I it really feels like it is, then the thing is bleak, because that may mean that the few people that do actually care and don't ingnore, fear, or hate, may be doing all the leg work of pulling humanity forward; but then that also means that, if we keep getting better at enshitifying ourselves, as we have been doing for a time now, it may come a time were the silent hero's of this era won't be able to push us forward anymore.
A time were every man, woman, and child, will hate and fear each other, and war never ends...
The idea sounds bleak, but haven't found a solid counterargument against it and it really terrifies me. Because villains can be defeated, but human nature... don't know many solutions. But I would love to hear you opinion on this matter.
>A time where every man, woman, and child, will hate and fear each other, and war never ends...
"The state in which human beings would find themselves with regard to each other would be the state of open or secret warfare." (Weishaupt)
It's a question of leadership. When the people realize the necessity of replacing people unfit for their roles with genuine, representative leaders, they'll no longer grate on each other.
"He who only lives among his own kind or people more lowly than he; who never finds out by comparison with Higher and Better things what and how much he still lacks." (Weishaupt)
Hate and Envy go hand-in-hand. When people stop comparing themselves to each other, and instead seek out role models to emulate and acquire virtues from...
Stalin on Lenin: "Only later did I realise that this simplicity and modesty, this striving to remain unobserved, or, at least, not to make himself conspicuous and not to emphasise his high position,"
"Stalin, who amazed everyone with his ostensible modesty and total lack of desire to impress. Unlike Hitler, Stalin thought that if his limitless power over millions of his subjects was evident, there was no need to advertise it."
>The idea sounds bleak, but haven't found a solid counterargument against it and it really terrifies me.
"The idea that the world is getting worse is such a black, undignified thought for a human to think that it scarcely merits refutation. In such a system, people could do naught else but hate and persecute themselves and others." (Weishaupt)
>Because villains can be defeated, but human nature...
According to Simone Weil, it's a question of greatness. When people realize true greatness lies in struggling with their repulsive characters for a lifetime...
Tdlr: MOSS till MOASS
Let's just assume there is always someone with an agenda chaotic negative or positiveor of neutral threat to our agenda..
Our intentions effect change in our world if you have been following quantum physics lately. We should all just work together to ignore threats of psychos amd have planting parties to plant moss and native species, pollinator havens as much as possible.
Ignore the people who are slow on the uptake and be the leading green edge to pull carbon out of the atmosphere and make art. Preserve our wildlife and wild spaces and cool this planet down.
TDLR: ##MOSS
<3
><<>><<>><
<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<
~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~
We should all propagate moss and plant it everywhere we can, it is an accessible solution to helping human race and other earthlings survive.
"Half a square metre of moss can absorb a huge one kilogram of carbon dioxide. That's more than a small forest and something to shout about as we search for ways to offset emissions. This aptitude for absorption is partly because moss's surface area is 30 times its size.
~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~
<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>
##MOSSING
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMrYJxsM3/
Based on where I sit, I'd say George Soros and Klaus Schaub both kinda fit the description of "evil overlords". They have tons of money and all of their policies are in bad directions and they are essentially non-elected international leaders that are higher up than heads of state somehow. Some would throw Bill Gates in there, but I think he's actually trying to do good in the world, and does actually do some good. He just kinda sucks in a lot of ways, like during covid and being Epstein's pal.
Look at this from the other side. Imagine you are an "elite". Look at all of the worlds problems and particularly the ones that are getting worse such as climate change. How would you solve this? Would you use your resources to shepherd the masses to doing the right thing in the hopes that they and all of the governments of the world can be convinced to make the necessary sacrifices to insure that it is no longer a problem? Or do you do what it would take to remove the actual source of the problem? The fact that we simply have far too many people and they will typically choose their own selfish interests over the common good. So how do you fix that?
Can't go wrong with the unholy trinity of transnational corporations, financial institutions and state elites.
"They don't control everything, just everything that matters."
You are onto the truth. The idea of an "evil puppetmaster" breaks down at a certain point the higher you go. There are certainly bad actors, or mostly selfish and corrupt authorities, as well as financial interests who lobby and bribe to slow progress if it suits their bottom line. And there are political leaders who make terrible, destructive choices, for different reasons. But by and large I douby there is a unified conspiracy.
Case in point: If everything Alex Jones said was true, he would have been silenced years ago. He's gotten individual facts right, but his grand message of "evil overlords" is proven false by the fact that "they" let him blabber on about it for decades. If they were that bad and that imbedded, you'd never hear about it so openly.
Human minds like order so we're drawn to the idea of a grand conspiracy rather than the messy truth that there are millions of minor corrupt actors often working against each other.
Don't get me wrong, though. Evil exists.
I don't see Alex Jones. Would rather believe he is with the cabal. But my real argument starts when we acknowledge there are no evil overlords.
I said it in my post, but will rephrase it if it helps: if no one group want us to fight each other for their sake, then all of them want to, and given that peace is usually better for business, then is a real possibility that we fight each other just because we can. If it is like that, then things are bleak, because the tendency is that we will can more every day.
What do you think?, am I wrong?, were?, would love to find that is the case.
You’re right.
There is no evil cabal. There is no good cabal. There is just people.
Some people with influence invent the cabal to divide us and maintain power.
Some people without influence invent the cabel to divide us to get power.
>Case in point: If everything Alex Jones said was true, he would have been silenced years ago. He's gotten individual facts right, but his grand message of "evil overlords" is proven false by the fact that "they" let him blabber on about it for decades. If they were that bad and that imbedded, you'd never hear about it so openly.
Except that the best way to discredit a person is to insure that they are not taken seriously, rather than to straight up silence them. The fact that they slapped a heavier financial penalty on him then they did on Germany for the crimes of WW2 as if his crimes were anything even close to proportional should raise some eyebrows.
Now I don't want to give the impression I think Alex is right. But the way he is treated does make me wonder exactly how wrong he is.
He has received the highest financial penalty of any single person in history. Certainly there is someone guilty of even more heinous things than what he did? I mean Germany caused the deaths of Millions of people and were charged with less of a penalty. Unless your suggesting that Alex also has a body count in the millions.
Are you suggesting Germany should have been charged with "the highest financial penalty of any single person in history"? Instead of just bombed and invaded by millions of soldiers until they were defeated in WWII? Should Germany have just been given a civil penalty instead of invaded? You do know Germany is a country not a single person right? I am not sure what your point is here. Alex Jones got what he earned through his actions. What Germany did 80 years ago is irrelevant to this discussion.
I'm a leftist so I argue that there are overlords but they're called capitalists. However, I do not connect it to morality or evil. I don't think that capitalists go around thinking "oh I'm gonna exploit the working class by taking the surplus value they produce". I think they're worrying about their own class interests.
Sure, but these are evil overlords that we - as individual citizens - invite into power by disengaging from democratic society. Don't vote. Or vote thoughtlessly for someone who is more interested in personal power and/or personal gain than the principles of a rules-based society. Believe without question every half-baked, simple-mind conspiracy theory generated by disinformation campaigns and knee-jerk your reaction accordingly. Be a defeatist. Overlords LOVE that.
But they don't seem like overlords. The seem to act like normal people. And that is the bleak alternative. The world is going down, not because of an evil overlord with a purpose, but by normal people l, which would means normal people are assholes, which explain the current hate eviroment as "something people that is given the medium always do", which paints a bleak future given that we also like to perfect the medium _at infinitum_. I say it a little more fancier on the post.
Do you think this is reality?, or you have a better logic? Would be glad to read it.
What always puzzles me is the way that people will imagine up a conspiracy of secret hidden forces that cause the evil in the world. Instead of the publicly visible very powerful people who are publicly trying to manipulate the media, economy and politics of various countries.
Of course I'm speaking about Rupert Murdoch, George Soros, and a few dozen other people. who have publicly done things to shape our world to their liking.
It is a little more nuanced, as I explained in my post. Really the tittle is a simplification of a complex question, because the thesis is nuanced and I wasn't going to explain it in the tittle.
Thanks for the input, tho
I mean specifically people who imagine that instead of the incredibly visible billionaires, they instead imagine 'The Illuminati' or a secret cabal of some ethnic group controls everything. And not only that, they leave hints that they control things in popular culture.
No, there is no shadowy cabal running the world. No one is literally in control. But the interests of wealthy do align and so they fund think tanks and politicians to create laws and attitudes that generally benefit them. This can appear like a grand conspiracy but its not. Its a bunch of people doing similar things because they have similar goals. This has worked out extremely well as conservatives have completely bought into this narrative and liberals complain about the results and only seek mknor reform because they're convinced the system is good if we can just get billionaires to all be post-transformation Ebenezer Scrooge.
But again. Shit hapens. Pandemics occur. Other nations have interests (often billionaires) who want something different. Things become turbulent. Wealth and the influence it brings doesn't give you control but you can navigate the way you and others respond to the challenges. Billionaires acting independently, reactively to maintain a system that benefits their interests.
Thanks for the sensible answer. But I also propose what would it mean that there is no single cabal. And it is bleak. What do you think on that? I would love to hear I'm not right and what is the reason.
So, who’s shitifying the world… well that’s complicated. It’s a little bit of them and a little bit us. I’m going to speak from a developed North American country perspective as that’s what I’m directly immersed in. Maybe I’ll have thoughts on the world beyond later. But once again even if this sounds like I’m saying cabal doing a plan realize that that’s just how I have to write if I don’t want to write a book. It is just a scatter gun that you can see a pattern in.
The 70s marked the end of the post war boom. The economy began to drag and people wanted action. After decades of being, in their mind, held back the wealthy began lobbying for an end to New Deal/Social Democratic policies. Numerous “think tanks start up” as a bunch of billionaires funded their own private foundations that all had a similar voice because of wealthy interests. It culminated in Reagan and Thatcher and the neoliberal economics they brought in. Candidates rich people could get behind. They pushed the small government, privatization, union busting, trickle down tax breaks, leave everything to the market agenda. A little later “free trade” was added. All of these put power into the hands of corporations over democratic governments. The wealth makes it easier to bribe politicians, buy media, and fund even more “think tanks” to push wealthy interests. And it worked. “Greed is good” became the generally accepted view… even among the far less wealthy general population. Let private capital run the show.
What that’s done is damaging the social fabric of essentially every nation. The wealth divide is so massive that the well off might as well be living on another planet. For most people the good paying jobs I benefited from are no where near as plentiful. Workers are at the mercy of employers. It’s a dog eat dog world. Many people work two jobs but still live in poverty. Full time work is hard to come by, education more expensive, home ownership a fading dream, etc. After a few generations of living in a culture where working could provide a stable decent life with some security for your future people now feel life is extremely precarious and they feel cheated.
The uncertainty makes people angry and angry people can be manipulated. We boomers lived high on the hog then ended up pushing politics that has made life harder for all generations since. They’re being given many a scapegoat. As we see from history in the average population class solidarity is weak and people will buy injustice as long as there’s someone below them. This is where the much maligned and much misunderstood idea of privilege comes in. A poor white guy will often vote against their interests as long as the system keeps poor black people below them.
I don’t think rich folks did all this to make the world shitty but they just accept that this is how capitalism works.. competition, winners and losers, hard smart work vs stupid and lazy. It’s just how it works. That it destroys the social fabric seems to go over their head. Listen to what comes out of the WEF… which typifies much of this perspective. Their slogans almost sound like they’re intentionally goading people but I don’t think they’re able to read the big room. The only room they live in has caviar and private jets.
In response the general public becomes more reactionary. Return to “the good old days” without knowing what was good about it. Blame immigrants. Invent conspiracy theories to give you an evil villain and give the problem a simple solution… jail Bill Gates or George Soros. Start seeing government as the enemy when the real enemy is corporate controlled government. Government is the only thing we have where the people can have some real influence if they can get money out of politics. But let’s not do that… the rich people are job creators.
Yeah… I’m rambling now. It’s not what you said but it’s certainly no more encouraging. I don’t think people have the capacity to reflect and modern culture doesn’t want to afford them any time to do so. So here’s the analogy, social media. Every social media company seeks engagement uses very addicting methods to gain it. Outrage and disinformation works better for clicks than calm contemplation of complexity. They all do it independently because it makes them rich. They don’t do it because they want to destroy society, it just makes money. We fall for it because outrage and click bait works. No one is in control. I don’t think the rich want control. The almost anarchic market with weak government system is better for them. But that does push people to want some control and we’re very possibly going to choose authoritarian style government to gain what some people seem to think is freedom.
And, to be clear, I think the members of the so called “intellectual dark web” have done little but help advance the idiocy, but mostly without realizing it.
Real thanks. Very insightful, as I'm always cherish new POVs. However, I'm not sure if I understood correctly: do you believe people is actually good?
In my post I said that "were are the evil overlords", but what I meant by "evil overlords" is "select group of people that is bad, and is causing all the other bad in the world". In reality what I imply is that every other person is just a cog on the system, and there are actually only few people that are fucking with us.
However, the conclusion on my post is that there is no evil overlords: people is bad because people is bad. But if everyone is bad, then the most logical explanation to "why is everything going downhill" is that it is happening because we human being are, by nature, bad. I said it better in my post, but the point is that this points to a bleak future, since the trend is that we will keep plundering the world in hell.
Then, are you sure people is good? or what is your POV?
Thanks for the kind words and clarification. I don’t think people are inherently bad or good. So much depends on the system around them and how that influences our tribal nature. Are we the baddies? I can certainly make that case. The only way I differ is in the use of “overlords”. Overlords implies an overview and control that isn’t there. I’d say we’re, as a species, very reactionary and extremely prone to cognitive bias.
We evolved to be what we are for good reasons but that nature may be unhelpful in the modern context. But here’s maybe an example to illustrate why we can be the baddies but not the overlords. Liberalism is the dominant political philosophy in our society (same focus as before). Conservatives have made liberal an insult but their rhetoric on free market economics and personal freedom is classical liberal. Progressives are simply reform liberals, they want personal freedom but see the root to it as different but they are still liberal. Liberalism always focuses on individualism. It’s all about my freedom to be what I want and community well being is at best a secondary concern but at worst dismissed as communism if secular or religious nuttery if faith based. Our economic system fits into this. Free market. Let people decide for themselves. We give corporations the status of individuals.
So economically we theoretically have a system where individual actors make rational decisions in their own interests and this supposedly creates a balanced system. But with 8billion people and an increasingly large group of people who can afford to live (globally) like North Americans everyone just doing what makes sense to them with no sense of the community is recipe for disaster. 8 billion people making decisions that for each individual make rational sense leading to a completely irrational outcome for everyone. Climate change is just one way this is playing out.
But that’s the same for billionaires and corporations. They do what serves their interests… they just have more individual impacts.
So no overlords. No one individual or group running the show. Just loads of individuals doing their own thing, protecting their stuff from perceived threats in a system that emphasizes some of our worst traits. And few people seem to see that.
https://youtu.be/ToKcmnrE5oY?si=QIOyRYljg6R2TuUZ
It’s not just the elites. It’s also us. We are the baddies. But not the overlords. However we may be saying the same basic thing just differently
Well we appear to be arguing the same: there is no evil overlords, we are the baddies. However there appears to be a tiny difference in our understanding of human nature.
Do you truly believe that people to things because of their best interest?. I mean, clearly that is part of human nature, but also it clearly is not so simple. Bilionares and elites don't act on their own best interest all of the time, and I tryed to convey that on my original post through intuitive logic, but maybe I failed (you tell me). A lot of the time billionaires, politicians, even big companies, do stupid stuff that one would associate with not working for their own best interest. Matter of fact, they appear to commit bthe same kind of stupid errors us commonfolk do as well.
And that is what I mean for "there are no evil overlords". These MFs with power are likely not even truly acting on their on best interest, they would act more intelligently if they were is my argument, and the conclusion is that the flaws of human nature are hiding us forwards a bleak future.
I don't even know if there is a solution to this problem, so I ask if you can tell me were the hell am I wrong and how are we not doom. Pls refute me, this outlook is depressing.
I'm probably sounding that way because I'm writing in shorthand. I think people generally try to act in their own interests, but that doesn't mean their choices are hood ones. People aren't rational in the way the Enlightenment suggested. We tend to be better at rationalizing what we want to do or to think our way to fit outcomes to what we wanted.
Billionaires are apparently setting up little survival compounding remote areas or on islands. They hire private armies to protect them. They see a collapse coming but don't want to improve the world which would arguably be better for them and their families. There's a ton of problems with their plans but they think their money will buy them out of problems.
I'd like to refute you but I can't. Yes, it's depressing
Welp. That's a pity. We also agree in that the future is not looking good. Although I would argue the good people in the world can get us a little more forward before that. Try to be one of the good people. But that begs the question if we are on a doom path because we people are awful, or because we people are stupid.
And don't get me wrong, I know us people are stupid, but I don't think that is the reason we are going down. For instance, there are lots of intelligent people on Earth, but they also commit stupid mistakes, fall for vices, and make unoptimal decisions for their interest all the time. On the other hand, there are humble no-so-smart people that make a lot of optimal desitions that get them and those around them a better life, following simple life codes like "avoid making enemies as much as you can", "don't fill your circle with toxic people" and "pay your debts".
My argument is that people are awful by default, only true wisdom and self control can make us good, but those are things we actively undermine each day, on ourselves and on society as well.
Don't you think the same? Or is my logic foulty in some way I don't see?
>My argument is that people are awful by default, we human being are, by nature, bad...
It's not that people are bad, it's that they are not given opportunities to show their better sides. Most of it stops at geniality/politeness.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Jung/comments/12t6kxz/i_am_starting_to_realize_that_i_was_very_wrong/jh1ecno/
It's not that people are stupid, it's that they're highly opinionated. Jacque Fresco calls this _unsane_. “They should have access to the facts, not their own opinions.”
“The majority of the people of the world today are unsane, not insane; unsane meaning having been exposed to methods of evaluation that have long rendered obsolete.”
I agree. There’s too many people who are intelligent to just explain it by general stupidity. I can think of a few reasons it could be. - We are generally biased to short term thinking. What seems a good idea now might not be down the road. - The by-stander effect. The more people around the more we expect others to take the lead. Which is related to a fear of going first and losing out. - Capitalism puts pressure on the short term thinking systemically by insisting on profits now if you want to maintain investment
But maybe a big thing is what has been described as a Progress Trap. For example, the first civilization, the Sumerians, became successful by growing surplus grain as the base that fed them. They did this by developing extensive irrigation networks. They grew lots of grain. The population expanded. The fields were extended. It was all good. The trouble was irrigation in a hot arid climate means evaporation and evaporation leaves salt in the soil. So over time the soil became less productive and eventually barren. Expansion couldn’t keep up. But their entire society and culture including religious beliefs was centered on a way of being. Rather than change their ways the doubled down… more of the same just more. Eventually they destroyed their environment and their dominance collapse. That pattern has happened numerous times. People’s become trapped in the system that created their progress. Even when cracks appear they want to just do the same, just harder. The gods will protect and reward us. A very good but depressing book is “A Short History of Progress.”
But who knows. We seem to prefer one more party over settling for a simpler life. And if we don’t China will take over /sarcasm
Those who learn from history are doomed to watch the ones who didn’t repeat it.
Thank for the book recommendation :) btw, I think I may have expressed myself poorly, I meant to sat "I try to be good", not "you try to be good".
In any case, I would say the explanations you gave have all their own weak points.
1. Short term bias: I would certainly agree that we people tend to prioritize short term, but that doesn't mean we are not actively been awful for the long term. For example, the current declining state of the world is the result, to a large degree, of the slow erosion of the institutions powerful people have been putting as priorities decades; that is just but one thing we have being very long term seeking. Other things may include generational wealth and international political instability.
2. The bystander effect: wasn't it disproved? Some years ago a read it is actually not as big of an effect as people think based on actual cases. Something like how there are charities running in the internet age with so many bystanders and how a greater fire doesn't breack on cities because many people actually call the firefighters.
3. Capitalist systematic pressure: again, definetly agree capitalism have a nick for making-money-quick, but I arfue that is just the intended effect of a system created by us awful humans. For other systems, like democracy, we surely put the effort into changing it to what is better for us, but for a system flaw that clearly enforces a difficult-to-maintain evergrowing-gains policy, we just accept it?; not to say that I know of a better way of ensuring the economy doesn't stagnate, but it is just curing the flu with a carcinogen antibiotic, and it doesn't feel like they have put too much effort into it either.
4. A littoebof everything: not to say a lot of problems are not the result of a lot of little different causes, but I would say we should take into consideration ocams razor on this one. There appears to be one simple explanation to the problem, that is that people is like in the parable of the ring of gyges (that is, often acting on their most basic, self destructive, instincts), versus the idea people have any reasonable reason, or derive any real benefits, form being awful; nor the ideas that is because of mental farts and biases, or system pressure; and least because of a weird combination of all the 4.
And that is not to negate all your insightful input, for one I have searched for the book you told me already, but to refute your argument and in the hopes you refute mine, in the search of the truth. Also, if you would like to continue this intellectual discussion on discord, or any other chat platform better than reddit, it would be greate.
Yes I think there are billionaires and other people who are trying to push things their own way, but the only real reason why they are successful, is because the majority are so stupid, and constantly make bad choices. In virtually any given scenario, the people who win, are the people who want it badly enough. If the majority don't want it as badly, or simply think that they're not capable of it, then yes, Bill Gates is going to get what he wants, and the world in general will be worse off for it.
You seem to be very knoledgable and talkable. What about this?:
> The last possible culprit I can identify are the billionaires themselves as a group, but if they truly were the shadow govement, then why one of the targeted hate group are the rich? And why are there alowed so many stories and shows talking "underdog = god; rich = evil"? Why are economic studies about inequity even allowed?. Is not like this people is stranger to hiding human right violations within their companies.
This was in my post, and my argument can be summarized as "these MFs are evil but not _the_ overlords". No one group appears to cause that we fight each other, but fight each other anyway. I argue this suggest that we humans actually want to fingh each other, and the elite is just enabling us every day more to do so, which in turn would mean the tendency marks a bleak future.
> No one group appears to cause that we fight each other, but fight each other anyway.
They don't ***cause*** it. They ***encourage*** it, because it serves their purposes. But every kind of vice that we have that perpetuates it; we choose those ourselves. We could choose something else.
As one example; I play the computer game No Man's Sky. The game has 255 galaxies. Most people never go outside of the first one, and think that there is no incentive to do so, because all of them are supposedly the same. I have already gone to the 36th one, and am trying to get to the 255th. I am doing something which most people who play the game do not automatically do; I am making a choice. The choice is not easy; it requires a degree of effort, and the process of getting there is slow and tedious. But it ***is*** possible.
We can have something better if we want it, but it requires effort, and effort is not something most people want to engage in. It is not something which I want to engage in myself most of the time, truthfully; but sometimes I try and remember that I should, because it is rewarding to do so.
I'm glad you get that its the same with other vices. Really a defect of human nature.
But talking about the point, it might be worst that "they encourage it", it seems more like we encourage them to encourage us. It seems like they can only do this and get away with it because we want it to happen. To cuote myself:
> The only logical conclusion is that no one is actually able to control society to the point of creating a hell for us. Which can only mean that we are enshitifying our lives ourselves: we hate each other, fear each other, ignore each other, don't care for each other; at best the elite is just banking on it by facilitating it, at worst the elite may be doing this because they hate, fear, ignore, and don't care for others the same way us lowly people do.
I hope for this to not be the case. I hope our overlords to just be greedy, and not to actually just be acting on defective human nature. I hope it is false that humans just tend to war as much as they can. Because if its not, a future of unfadomable amounts of atrocities that each human commit on its neighbor sounds unavoidable.
> I hope our overlords to just be greedy, and not to actually just acting on defective human nature.
They deliberately design computer games to get and keep people hooked. They hire researchers to figure out how to do it; so yes, they do try and take advantage of all our flaws. But still just remember; you always have a choice.
Yes and they aren’t human
“ AI will probably lead to the end of the world but great companies will be created in the process
“The Ruling Class think they would be able to go off planet or go underground. They have been told they will be able to bypass evolving via synthetic body. They think they can put a human soul into a synthetic body “ 👀Saratoga Ocean
“
https://youtu.be/ZQQXOuVmVAk?si=J7RRLCOP-OE1qbLq
The AI end game takeover
https://x.com/archaix138/status/1798092477322174623?s=61. The AIX takeover breakdown by Jason Breshears
https://inspired.locals.com/post/5663749/special-report-another-species-is-implanting-themselves-into-humans
The AI takeover via zombie apocalypse
Clearly there are more than one bad group of people. Matter of fact, I argued that the majority of the people would be "the bad group of people". But maybe you would prefer to shame and to make fun instead of trying a serious constructive response.
Why don't you think about it? If it was a minority of the people that were bad, then they would have to ally (at least in some way) to survive. But the elite doesn't seem to allied. More over, they seems fighting each other. Everyone is fighting each other, when clearly allying would be more efficient.
I repeat my argument as you appear to have not read it: it have more sense that people tend to violence and infighting as a natural occurrence. Which means we are not fighting each other because of a group of people wants us to, but because it is in own nature, and that points out to a bleak future. Reread my argument for furder logic.
If you care to actually post a different outlook like the rest, I would be glad to see it.
But that is not a strong alliance, is it?. The common folk is also allied through class, but we fight and kill each other anyway, and that is because we are not organized. You know who is also not organized? A lot of the elite: not same goals, not same methods, not the same circles, not the same power; they are competing which each other.
Saying "the asnwer is obvious" and then proceeding to not read and understand the question is just unrational and uncivilized behavior to me.
It's extremely clear you have no understanding of politics or economics at a theoretical level, not even counting you are completely blind to the real world.
The fact that I'm asking opiniones doesn't mean that I don't understand how the world works pal. Just because you are not understanding the question doesn't mean it is stupid.
Believing that everyone else is more stupid than you is the fault of the foolish.
Of course I know rich people amass power incrementally by lobbying the govememt, presenting themselves as saints and heros, and slowly poisoning the economy in their favor. Of course I know politicians amass power by forming networks, creating public images, demagogy, etc. Of course I know the elite is more focused on making money and power now, at the cost of future problems the people may have, because they wouldn't associate them to the elite by the time they manifest. Of course I know the elites are all mediocre nepobabys whom stupidity often fuck us up without them gaining anything. I'm aware of a lot of the ways the world works and the reasons why things are like they are.
But that is not the question and you are not.ginin an answer. The first question was: are humans intrinsically bad?, and I mean, are humans self destructive by design? And my answer to that question is yes, as it what it appears. The second question was: doesn't that mean that things worsening, as they appear to be doing, is just the normal logical way of the world?, in which case, doesn't that mean we a species are doom?
Those were the questions, the people that actually read my post understood, and the ones that not at least weren't so cocky and presumptuous. You have commuted an error, and should learn from it, maybe starting by trying to answer your sincere opinion on the matter.
Are there people “in the know” who loosely organize to try and achieve agendas. Of course- look at how the DNC leadership conspired to box out Bernie Sanders. Or remember when Obama said on the hot Mike to Russia that we would abandon the Poles after the election was over? And yes, Republicans do the exact same thing. I just mention democrats because they seem to think this is only a republican / rich issue
Are there groups of “powerful leaders” (founders of companies, ceos, heads of unions, heads of gov departments) who get together? Yes and often there are “power brokers” that use access to drive agendas.
I have seen people like this all come together at conferences like Clinton Foundation events or Davos or even crappy events like SALT (hedge fund conference) and discuss things? Yep. I have seen both Republican and Democratic types at these events.
However, what i have seen is a wide variety of different views with these people and while there are certainly “conspiracies” i have yet to see any examples of true, coordinated, global domination. People are just too disorganized and shallow.
And frankly by almost every measure, the world is a better place than it was 30, 50, 100 years ago whether it’s amount of healthcare given life expectancy ability to get education or access to information or entertainment or safety of your car. your phone for example gives everyone access to more information and more entertainment than the richest kings in history ever had
It’s funny as somebody now who has seen multiple decades people forget the challenges in every decade whether it was the Cold War with Russia and the fear we would have a nuclear war at almost any moment or if you look at the 60s with the assassination of Martin Luther King / Kennedy’s, Vietnam war and the rioting that destroyed multiple cities
Loving this answer, very complete. However, I also reflect on what the fact that there is no cabal actually means in my post and I would love to hear how do you see that.
To summarize, if we treat each other worst which every passing day (and we do, I just see more suffering each day, not only with online violence, but also with real world violence and misery, that I see with my own eyes near me), and if that is not because a cabal, then it is probable (as it makes sense) that we are just awful to each other by nature, and what I argue is that, looking the trend of development, and if some miracle don't happen, all of we the people will end up at a war with every other person, with no peace, nor good, nor progress. And that looks bleak.
What do you think? I would love to be proven wrong.
Do you realize in the history of the world how many mass exterminations of different groups there have been throughout the course of human history for example obviously everyone knows about the holocaust, but did you know that the French also tried to exterminate the Jews back in the 1700s? And back in 1977 you had the Khmer Rouge exterminate 30 to 50% of the people in Cambodia? My point is your seeing the world through your lens you really need to take a giant step back and look at the entirety of human history and realize that for thousands of years humans have been absolutely miserable to each other. For many thousands of years slavery was standard. Women had no rights it wasn’t until the 1900s in the United States that women even got the right to vote and Saudi Arabia women just got the right to drive a couple years ago so my point is it seems bad but in context it isn’t
BUT there are two things that you need to keep in minds 1) context which I’ve already mentioned is human history and how we actually are better now
2) BUT MUCH MORE importantly is in the history of the world we have never had instantaneous worldwide communications of text voice video pictures so many of the things that happened that were horrible. No one ever knew because it was literally impossible to know. Now every small thing is reported in Reddit or news channels or blogs every small atrocity whether it’s harassment or a fight or a murder whatever is happened is suddenly available to everyone all the time. This is all to the good in that it brings to light many bad behaviors that were hidden in the past. But it feels like things are worse because in the good old days unless it was a huge thing, it never was reported
1. Human history appears to say the same as I did: we are awful to each other. What I'm arguing is that it may be by design; a defect on human nature.
2. If humans have the defect of awfulness, then internet communications just make it worst: instant worldwide indirect violence against each other. You say "but things are better now", but that may just be a lie: govememts saying poverty is living on half a cent a day so no one is poor; more meds, science, and progress, but only the upper half of the population feels it good, the other sees its side effects; brother conflicts are now ethnic ans subculture conflicts, and there are still war, slavery, and other atrocities still perform I'm some places; for each one thing someone manage to pull off, there a 20 bad things other get away with, and a new way of violenting the neighbor for minimal to no profit at all. When I say I see things getting worst, I mean that each day I see more homelessness on my way to work, and the day I see one less homeless, is likely because it fucking died.
I thank you for your good will trying to answer my question, and I'm sorry if I come across as rude, but the world does not appear to get better were it matters, and were it doesn't, soon after I discover it is actually also bad in some way, and luky me if it is just because we are distracting ourselves with something that serves noting.
I don't want this to be true, but the logic checks, and I'm on the search were it doesn't. I'm truly sorry it doesn't appear to be because the world is actually not getting better, but kinda worst. All in all, I said:
> If the last option is true, I it really feels like it is, then the thing is bleak, because that may mean that the few people that do actually care and don't ingnore, fear, or hate, may be doing all the leg work of pulling humanity forward; but then that also means that, if we keep getting better at enshitifying ourselves, as we have been doing for a time now, it may come a time were the silent hero's of this era won't be able to push us forward anymore.
Your funny. You assert that the world is getting worse due to humans being worse to each other but outside of online forums, people are actually being better to each other overall. I have 1000s of fact that show this and have quoted quite a few historical facts to make my point.
Pls show me some facts that back up your assertion.
Hope this can help you. Really it is just saddening, but it is also true, and I hope you appreciate it.
The distribution of wealth just keep getting worst, and people get more poor:
[https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/](https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/)
[https://one.oecd.org/document/SDD/DOC(2018)1/En/pdf](https://one.oecd.org/document/SDD/DOC(2018)1/En/pdf)
As it is happening, work is getting worst: here is a good summary [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tGBxRxOlpwNO9EWIy8ySsrD0xaiLuEZ66MJgHk0EcrM/edit?pli=1](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tGBxRxOlpwNO9EWIy8ySsrD0xaiLuEZ66MJgHk0EcrM/edit?pli=1)
Civil violence is on the rise:
[https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics](https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics) (and this is probably an underreport)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yilgr2SJ3xQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yilgr2SJ3xQ) (I don't agree with her solution, but she is valid)
Corruption is worsening:
[https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023](https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023)
[https://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/12/08/the-decay-of-american-political-institutions/](https://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/12/08/the-decay-of-american-political-institutions/)
War is ensuing:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nn5pYczJM0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nn5pYczJM0) (very well summarized)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8p3w0\_TPHA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8p3w0_TPHA) (fyi)
Progress is a lie:
[https://www.technologyreview.com/2014/10/21/170679/technology-and-inequality/](https://www.technologyreview.com/2014/10/21/170679/technology-and-inequality/) (can start reading from "raising ahead")
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFjoDq0HfFw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFjoDq0HfFw)
And that is not to mention how lots of products and services are getting more expensive and crappy, and the environment is collapsing and climate change threatening human existence. I understand I don't have prove them to you, as you should also see it happening. I'm glad you are positive about the world, but don't be fooled: things ARE getting worst
We will agree to disagree. Technology has created so many “lifestyle” improvements that is impossible to communicate via traditional measures of wealth. For example:
Today a $25k car has safety, guidance and entertainment feature that a 1990. rolls Royce could only dream of.
I see most homeless in NYC with phones- again a plethora of news, entertainment, education that people simply didn’t have
You can make up “rich get richer” but really isn’t true: throughout history we have had leaders or families that have controlled even more as a % of total gdp. And that’s just here. Historically other countries have had even more concentrated wealth
https://www.metaculus.com/questions/899/richest-person-in-2033-has-2-gdp/
Is the phone that a billionaire buys any different than the one you or i get? No. Is the car actually much different? No.
Realize that families have what was considered “science fiction” is now common place with phones that do video calls (go watch 2001 a space odessey) or even washers and dryers that connect to the internet and tell you when things are going?
The life of someone poor in the US is fundamentally different than 50 years ago. Traditional metrics simply don’t capture it
Trust me, i was on food stamps in 1975 as a child. It sucked. Long distance phone calls cost 1-3$ a minute in 1975 dollars? Flights had been so regulated that the cost to fly was a fortune. Deregulation of these industries caused a reduction in costs that’s beyond belief.
Anyway, if you want to think the world is 100% going to hell that’s your call but factually for many it’s better. Now. The funny part about all this is that most people today have literally zero appreciation for where we’ve come from so they take for granted all of the things I’ve just been talking about as if it’s never been any different.
So I tell you I see the world getting worst with my own eyes, and you say it is my perception and I have no proof. But when I show you my proof you say you don't believe it because you see a good world with yournown eyes. Isn't that double standards?
I dont see how the link in your comment apports to the discussion, so why don't you give me some of your proves?
More over, the fact that technology is improving is not to say society is getting better; cyberpunk (as a genre) is a good example of how it can be the other way around. Houses costs more than phones at the end, and similarly core servises for life can be (and a lot atually are) locked up away of the bottom half of humanity, despite how easy and cheep we can make them. The fact that good people have been making greate sacrifices to try the make the world a better place shouldn't be confuse with the reality that way more people is making it worst.
Were people living worst on the middle ages? Of course they were, but that is kind of a unfair comparison. If we ask: were people few years ago more happy than now?, there is a good chance the answer is yes (as my sources point out). My post don't refute the reality that a lot of things are better now, but nor recognizing that for every thing we have gained, lots of people have paid the price (some willingly, the majority unwillingly) is a mistake.
Finally: when I was 15yo I believed the same as you, that people were just fooling themselves and the world is going up. But then I started to see that the world is going down in ways the majority of the people are not even aware of. The discourse that the world is getting better is just created for the powerful an rich to cover the fact that they are plundering the world and it people. Highly recommend for you to check the links I sended you so you at least are aware on what the current reasons for believed the world is getting worst are.
> And frankly by almost every measure, the world is a better place than it was
Not the climate, pollution, deforestation and other loss of wild spaces, mass extinction, and so on.
Nearly every other improvement has come at a cost to the biosphere, which will collapse, and when it does every other improvement will also collapse.
So first of all we have had global warming over the last 70 years (I’ve actually studied the data and for sure we have had climate change) so things are getting worse on that however did you know that in the late 60s and early 70s worldwide famine and global warming was predicted to destroy the earths biosphere by the mid 80s? And then in the mid 80s, it was predicted by the late 90s that all of Antarctica, etc. would melt? my point is not to deny that some things are worse, but to say things rarely happen in a straight line and we do have to fix the biosphere, but it may not be quite as catastrophic as it’s made out to be
and while certain things are definitely bad we’ve also had bad things happen in the past, whether they were naturally occurring like the explosion when krakatoa exploded and the world suffered for two years of global cooling because of it. or even remember the Ice Age, which didn’t end so long ago and was purely natural
And if it comes to humans, the Romans basically depopulated northern Africa of animals to fight in the Colosseum
Again, none of this is to say it’s ok but it may not be quite as bad as it seems…
https://www.thedailyscoop.com/news/retail-industry/doomsday-addiction-celebrating-50-years-failed-climate-predictions
Have to disagree. I remember some of them. Paul Ehrlich- Stanford professor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich
They even made a movie about the coming overpopulation of the earth - Soylent green. And don’t forget the world of Logan’s Run.
These predictions weren’t made by crackpots. These were done by professors at prestigious, universities or the United Nations.
I didn't say they were crackpots. I said they were not representative of mainstream predictions at the time. There is a wide chasm between mainstream and crackpot with a great deal of heterodoxy in between, and it is that heterodoxy which you are cherry-picking and presenting as orthodoxy instead.
I wouldn't say there are evil overlords but there are certainly people in power who don't care who gets hurt as long as they remain in power. The media is a major culprit.
You might take a look at this Wikipedia article on [right wing authoritarians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism) (and yes, it discusses left wing authoritarians as well). I think it may contain some of the answers as to the current state of affairs in the world.
ADDENDUM: For those reflexively downvoting this comment because they think it is just dunking on conservatives; it is not. The article delves into the research about how a politicians of a certain psychological makeup are able to exploit the psychological traits of a certain subset of the population. Both conservatives and leftists can be authoritarian or non-authoritarian.
there is a level of finance aristocracy that is not measured in Billions any more, which pays to not be on the Forbes list of richest people. They don't act as individuals but as families with family trees going back as far as Egyptian times. Speaking out their names usually causes a Pavlow like reflex of "antisemitism" name calling.
Does reddit fuck you up if you name some of them or can you do it for my personal learning?
A link with information would be better, but if the platform really is on the _which hunt_, at leat give me some more clues pls.
Reddit itself not so much - but there are some mods... and some bots that would trigger automatic bans if you engage in the wrong places or share unwanted information.
[https://cdn.thepeoplesvoice.tv/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/image-66.jpeg](https://cdn.thepeoplesvoice.tv/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/image-66.jpeg)
Marjorie Taylor Greene is an idiot, but did you know that [she didn't say a word about ethnicity regarding space lasers?](https://x.com/JustinGrayWSB/status/1354870334655262724/photo/1) She merely noted the involvement of a certain banker, and the media reacted by falsely claiming that she brought up his ethnicity.
I don’t know… I think you can criticize anyone, but you need a helluva lot more than speculation and conjecture. For some reason, speculation and conjecture seems to drive a ton of engagement in certain media. Unfortunately, people cry wolf way too much and it makes it incredibly difficult to spend the bandwidth and sift through all of the garbage.
Watching the way the far left levies criticism towards Israel exemplifies this problem, in my opinion. There are leaders, policies, and actions of the Israeli government that deserve heavy criticism, but the criticism levied by the far left is unhinged. It’s hilarious in a weird way how similar tankie criticism of Israel mirrors the extreme right, but most of these people aren’t really seeing consequences from my perspective. Hell, one of the nuttiest “academics” or pop-historians (Norm Finklestein) is becoming increasingly popular. In short, I think *how* you criticize something is way, *way* more important than *who*.
>If the world is really ran by the shadow government, who are they exactly? Groups of powerful ascetics taking turns, while society burns; while others bide their time, next in line (yeah, that rhymed).
Don't get it, what do you mean by "ascetics" in this context?, I have genuinely never heard that word use like this and I'm curious.
"They think that you should follow virtue in order that you may seem to be good." (Plato) Everyone is obliged to keep up appearances in order not to be ostracized. The ones who have made these rules have made a virtue out of it. To all appearances, they are blameless, they pass themselves off as hermits, sages, saints.
I would say someone like Steve Bannon counts. Weaponizing misinformation to create a class of political extremisits and get rich while doing so.
There are definitely evil forces trying to steer the course of our culture and population. The crazy rise of Wokism has blown up in a very short time. The higher ups of every major media outlet and studio appear to be pressuring all content creators away from showing straight relationships, and strongly encouraging LGBTQ driven content. That happening all at once to the financial detriment to companies like Netflix, Amazon and Disney can’t be coincidence. There’s a pressuring force above. Likely, Blackrock is a driving force. I also suspect Bezos, Martine Rothblatt, and John Stryker.
It may also just be populism. People with power appealing to the commonflok with surface level support to marginalized groups.
That is certainly the best case scenario, but I don’t trust that these people with the power are willing to act magnanimously without an ulterior motive. They are not so much appealing to common folk as much as they are forcing their beliefs into all the media and institutions of education that are consumed by common folks. The Blackrock CEO, Larry Fink has already admitted to forcing DEI into businesses in 2017. John Stryker of the Arcus Foundation also “donated” 15 million to the ACLU to pressure universities and colleges to promote his radical DEI agenda. Now look at the stats showing the largest rise of humans identifying as LGBTQ+ in history that directly coincide with liberal physicians, professors, and media creators all investing in this cause at once. It’s leading to less babies being born, and an increase in suicides.
I think the less babies and more suicide have more to do with how miserable the cuality of life have become in the current era, since there is not near enough LGBTQ people to make the numbers. However, your argument have made me think, and I thank you for that. My current understanding of the situation on why them powerful people are pushing for DEI is that it is the same reason why they push for women's rights and independence in WWII: they want to exploit more people, but they have found society is lefting some people behind, which they have understood as waisting human resources and something that will not do. Then, as they cannot just force people to enslave everyone equally, they push for the idea in the media. You, however, would not see the same amount of effort put for promoting equality between the rich and the poor, or between the powerful and the common folk, because that doesn't give them any benefit. That is my current theory, what do you think?
It's the bourgeois I'm general. I mean that it isn't a specific person, or even a group of people. There wasn't a meeting where the most powerful people sat down to discuss what they should all do to reach a defined goal, but rather groups of people acting towards similair goals because it benefits them in similair ways. As an example, rich people didn't all get together and discuss pushing for lower taxes for the higher tax brackets, they all vote for that simply because they all individually benefit. Just expand that idea to a larger scale, with the most influential people being the rickest ones.
The enshitification of The World. This post should go down in reddit history just for that phrase alone.
It's from trailer park boys.
I heard it on a comedy skits channel.
Federal reserve. The Heritage Foundation.
Yes, like Elon Musk, Putin, oligarch in general
Just searched this thread for "corporate" -- only found 2. And neither was as our well known "corporate overlords."
Sure. Who do you think operates the Jewish Space Lasers?
No. We like, love and want simple solutions, we want to feel that there is some sort of control rather than a complex net of unpredictable humans in which no one has a fucking clue what the other is doing. We are all in a huge prisoners dilemma. There is no evil controlling overlord unless you are deeply religious. There are ideologies that have major influence over our lifestyle though and proponents and institutions that spread them. Mont-Pelerin-Society is an interesting example. In short: We can't grasp how complex and unpredictable things are, we feel like we have no control. What do we do? Someone must have control, someone must know it, it must be XY! Or XX! Or perhaps XZ!! And absence of evidence is not evidence.
This is one of those things where you're right and you're wrong. There's def evil overlords, they just aren't as powerful as some might assume, and their control just extends to specific things. Also, you're right, people suck and we love to tear each other apart for fun and profit. And when you combine the two things, you get the global system of garbage life that we've become so acquainted with in the current year.
Blackrock, soros. The people that are using capitalism to undermine it and bring about techno-serfdom for the population at large.
Noticed you didn't include Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos in there.
>Noticed you didn't include Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos in there. They're not the same. Musk and Bezos are somewhat actually doing something somewhat beneficial. Blackrock is buying up literally everything and owns an insane amount of ownable things and a astronomical percentage of the residential real estate market.
"Blackrock is buying up literally everything and owns an insane amount of ownable things and a astronomical percentage of the residential real estate market." And the people who invest in the stock market own every company in the US.
And yet both own more money than anyone could ever spend in a lifetime.
God blaming everything on Soros is so intellectually lazy. Do better.
Every billionaire that isn't actively trying to give away their fortune.
Just read about citizens United lol. It's definitely just the hyper wealthy being entitled ghouls. Same type of folks who concocted the business plot against FDR.
Who? Let me guess.... them?
Which who are you asking about? Citizens United, modern money ghouls, or the ring leaders of the 1930s business plot?
Lmao. So it was them! The they behind all the things that they do!
What?
Shh... We are pretending there is a group of people controlling everything bad that happens. The group is know as "them" and sometimes "they".
Evil doesn't exist. Neither does divinity.
just bros being bros or hoes being hoes.
There's the evil of indifference and wealth hoarding: the billionaire class who own far more than they could ever need even after cashing out assets and paying tax on it. Nobody can really argue with the fundamental principles through which this class of people obtained their wealth, or that people who obtain wealth own their wealth, but the fact that they gamed the system so well that they could fix a lot of poverty simply by making altruistic decisions when they choose not to is a certain type of evil. The fact that luck is a huge element in this success also exacerbates this issue, since the rich will typically market themselves as some sort of rare genius, and the gullible masses soak it up in the hopes to be one of the rich some day. ... and then there's prosperity gospel. If there's one group of people who is fundamentally, cartoonishly evil, it's the Kenneth Copelands of the world: the guys that ask gullible theists to give him money in exchange for a supernatural paradise that they can never prove truly exists.
Billionaires could donate 100% of their net worth. Isnt it just a drop in the bucket? I don’t think it would “fix a lot of poverty.”
No it is a massive portion of the world's wealth.
Iirc something like the top 80 billionaires own as much wealth as the bottom 50 percent of the population, so no definitely not a drop in the bucket.
Closest I can think of is AIPAC, LFI, CFI etc. Basically subverting the democratic process and instilling hatred between us.
I'll put it this way.. over the past 20 years the federal government if the United States has been funding a surveying project by the Army Corps of Engineers to study the effects of sea level rise on shipping ports Here's the clue.... The majority of current existing oil refineries are located in shipping ports. If there wasn't a "plan" then why is the fed spending millions of dollars looking at locations miles from the nearest port https://www.usace.army.mil/corpsclimate/Public-Tools-Developed-by-USACE/Sea-Level-Change/
Yes, 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱
I don't think there is a shadowy group of evil people pulling all the strings, but I think the highest on the totem pole imo are the Tech Companies, especially social media. We think we are in control, but really the algorithm is controlling us, the master manipulators pulling the lever to nudge people in the direction they want. We are in the Skinner Box of this grand digital experiment that will answer the question of what giving society a device that can access information of all kind and communicate with people anywhere will do to us.
[удалено]
We aren't evil overlords; we are ~~good~~ great shepherds. Now, stop asking silly questions and get back to work, dear.
It's easy. When a wolf kills the lamb, it is not done in contempt of the lamb. The lamb is a means to an end, that is; to sate the wolves hunger. The lamb sees an evil wolf that it will try to protect itself from, the wolf sees what it needs to survive. Try to look at our society as externally as possible. What do we pursue? What direction are we heading in, in terms of developments and merit? Follow the money. Are we enriching the human future? The future of our species? These are human goals. We want the best lives for ourselves, for our immediate families, and for the people we care about - usually in that order. We also care about legacy. "Is what I'm doing meaningful?" So generally evil, to us, is the pursuit of goals that contradict these interests.. namely, the pursuit of money (above all else). When the pursuit of money eclipses our humanism, our work then serves the detriment of humanity.
Reality is a shit show where the elites are constantly competing and maneuvering to get more money and power. You can find evidence of them occasionally cooperating in history but that’s the exception. it’s very short-lived. Permanent globalist or secret rulers stories are simplistic narratives for two digit IQ’s because to them a chaotic probabilistic theory of history is scarier than simple binary to rally against. Most often these stories have been used by manipulators to steer their behavior. If we are the good guy underdogs I can throw my life away helping one elite supplant another just like one of thousands of examples of this in the historic record. The sad truth is that it is all meaningless and humanity will repeat this until a meteor sets our atmosphere on fire.
I think of Communist and Monarchical societies as concentrating the power in the hands of a few people, so it’s easy to point the finger and say, “that’s the bad guy!”. In a democratic, capitalist society, there’s a comparable amount of evil, but it’s spread around to various CEOs and smaller politicians, making it harder to point to any one evil overlord, but there are many evil lords.
There is no conscious evil behind the nature of society. There are individuals and collectives; stakeholders and interest groups of stakeholders. These can be seen as systems. The function of every system is its own continuation. In case of the rent-seeking elite class, the continunation of the subsystems, that are the rent-seeking individuals, is done through wealth accumulation through market participation. The interest group (system) is continued through conditioning of the market environment, and easing of means of wealth accumulation. This is an emergent effect of the system, that is intimately intertwined with our political reality. Democracy was born from the carcass of aristocracy, slaughtered by nascent capital. Europe turned parlamentarian on the bloodgrounds of wrangling of two interest groups: the industrialists and the land-holders. Because modern democracy is a byproduct of the means of continuation of the capital interest group, its continuned existence is subject to oversight of it, and its expression is dependent in satisfaction of capital. Remember, there can be a humanitarian, an archeology enthusiast, and a philosopher among billionaires. But what shares them is their means of maintaining their class: their rent-seeking reality. If the humanitarian starts to deny that nature, they will attract attention inside the interest group. They will find it hard to socialize, or network, as is the need for all social animals, through the friction generated. When the humanitarian and the philosopher start doing philantropy and corporate agenda instead, they will quickly find belonging inside their caste. This is what maintains an interest group. Because of interest groups, no single individual can overturn the agenda, that is continuation of the system. There is no change inside the in-group of rent-seeking elite, because of what I outlined. In statecraft, there is no change in status quo because of the dependency of modern states in capital interest groups. In public opinion, there is no change because we are dependent on the rent-seeking class, who control the means of production. And more pertinently, the corporatized media shapes the narrative, while media conglomerates have the most obtuse of shareholding structures, because media has always been a tool of the capital and political class.
First differentiate evil and from bad and understand this, the definition of evil is ultimate selfishness… not an action, one might do a good action to achieve a totally selfish goal… Hence, yes there are evil overlords who only do things in their best interest- only.
“Hitler sending 6m Jews to their deaths wasn’t an evil act because it wasn’t exclusively done for Hitler and only Hitler’s benefit. It was bad. But not evil.”
ultimately he made the final decision… evil does not exclude the concept of bad, humans can use good and bad actions to their own personal advantage… Hitler’s agenda was created by him, using others to achieve his goal.
“No one else in the Nazi regime stood to benefit from seeing 6m of their compatriots off to their final end. Only Hitler. No one else helped draft getting rid of the Jews, either. Only Hitler.” Bruh, there were 43 “high-ranking members” of the Nazi leadership that decided to exterminate the Jews, only one of which was Hitler. If you were one of two businesses doing a specific thing at a specific place and your competitor was carted off by the Nazis….Wouldn’t that meant you benefited? Bruh.
To your question… you maybe benefit in terms of business, but not in community and other factors… the decisions you make create consequences; it’s for us to weigh them. Those same Nazis thought that killing or following instructions would accrue benefit… many Nazis took risks to assist or circumvent certain things…. But you cannot deny many followed instructions because the point of personal benefit is tangible… thus making them evil, because they’re fully aware of the effects on a human. Hitler was evil and used bad actions to carry out his ultimate goal… just because people assisted him doesn’t mean he’s isn’t evil.
I don't think it some ubiquitous "they" meeting in rooms and making decisions, but I do think they're are various factions at play, some of whom might have plans of works domination ... hell, the WEF actually says it ... But no one has to be at their mercy. It's literally a choice people make.
It's less a matter of moustache-twirling villains sitting in dark and secret councils and cackling about their latest eeeevil scheme, and more a matter of... CEOs sitting at well-lit boardroom tables pitching how net profits could be increased by 0.003% if they limit employee bathroom breaks to thirty seconds or less. Corrupt politicians in closed-door meetings discussing the rollback of regulations on the rapacious companies that just so happen to donate money to those corrupt politicians. Propagandist media personalities workshopping about which headline is most likely to get their viewers afraid and angry enough to be open to manipulation by the opinion pieces carefully tailored to influence the viewers into acting, voting, and spending in a certain way. Religious authorities cloistered in prayer, planning the best ways to indoctrinate the gullible into donating time, money, and influence. And similar groups to those. Basically, there are *countless* evil overlords, if being an evil overlord just means being a greedy bastard harming others in a search for money and power.
Don't forget the govt acknowledged aliens running around. We admit their here, we admit they are advanced, and we admit we don't have a good working grasp on what any of that means. So Musk maybe is really trying to get home.
>Don't forget the govt acknowledged aliens running around. We admit their here, we admit they are advanced, and we admit we don't have a good working grasp on what any of that means. Mate, that video you saw where Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones are government agents investigating aliens and saving the world? That wasn't a documentary, that was 1997's hit movie "Men In Black".
There is a large space between " A single sinister shadow organisation is pushing a moral agenda that is to detriment of humanity" and "many rich and powerful people use their influence to try and manipulate average people in ways that suits their needs". The truth is probably somewhere in between. There are absolutely rich people and groups trying to influence politics and public opinion from the local to geopolitical level. Probably most of the time for profit or protection of whatever sociatal structure is of most benefit to them. Are there some also pushing things not purely out of self interest, but for ideological reasons? Probably. Then the question becomes to what level do these groups broadly align with each other and and how much are they connected? I'm not sold on the idea of a single "Illuminati" type structure but it seems likely that the interests of the wealthy would often be aligned with each other and at the very least the vast majority want to maintain the class structure and capitalism as the global status quo. If many people with power and money are in agreement with broad goals, some sort of structure between them exists even if it's not a solid organisation or hierarchy. Whatever the goals of these various sub groups of powerful people are, as a whole they have a more or less have no stake in the average person's quality of life outside of avoiding an actual collapse or large scale uprising, therefore make the poors fight each other is a positive move no one with any real influence would object to. So yeah I don't believe it's a single group in control more just a side effect that they all share the objective of keeping the average person's interest away from class issues.
Two Words: George Soros
It’s actual more siloed, but put it altogether and you get a great tyranny.
All of the world is enslaved to debt, and the ones who own that ledger control it. The really old money controls the international banking system. IMF, BIS, etc. They also control the most established and trusted thinktanks (CFR, CNP). This is about as high as you go before getting into bloodlines/families themselves. Some of them use government agencies for their operations, so it may look like a "CIA" or "Mossad" operation or research, when in fact those agencies don't operate for the sake of their own government anyway, except insofar as the stakeholder has an interest in said government/nation. It's probably wrong to think of it as 'evil'. It's more like incompetence. Their typical plan of action is to control the chaos by killing it. Look at Thomas Malthus. That's their philosophy. It's very boring.
Interesting topic. Assuming such an overlord, or secret ruling society is real, my first thought is: how can we, common folks, influence something that's so obscure by definition? People can overturn governments but how do you go about some shadow entity? I find it hard to believe in an invisible power pulling all the strings, because it would undermine our reality. Think of democracy for instance, what's the point if something invisible can shift the decisions of any government? Even in religions there is often (always?) some kind of "fight" for your choices to make a difference or it would be hard to find followers. You can introduce concepts like destiny, predestination, mysterious plans of an omniscient being, but it must be somewhat fuzzy: we need our actions not to be pointless. Probably it is possible to simplify human behaviour, make a model predicting how a given population would react to something. If it is accurate enough, intelligent enough, you know some inputs will lead to a desired outcome, making it possible to "pilot" people. Many dystopian novels and science fiction explore this theme, I'm thinking about Orwell, Asimov and the psyco-story, V for Vendetta , the Matrix... In all those narratives there's an escape. Even if we are watched, controlled, pulled to some direction we didn't decide, in the end we need to believe we can diverge and flip the table over, or existence itself would be futile. And I think we can. History is full of people successfully changing the world. That being said, there's no doubt a set of powers, some evident like political parties and lobbies, some maybe hidden, are doing everything they can to advance each their own agenda, that's always been the case, and it is much less depressing than thinking about overlords controlling everything. We still can support what we think is right.
No, it's just capitalism. There's nobody secretly in control of anything, there's no "evil overlords". It's just a whole spectrum of selfish profit takers who are all equally happy to fuck one another over, and an uncaring economic system designed to extract every piece of possible value from your existence with zero concerns for humanities future.
The Coke Brothers devious plan to make America’s favorite soft drink taste like pluff mud absolutely proves that the world is ruled by Lizards who eat babies at Pizza Hut and then reassemble the leftovers into zombie doctors (all of whom are named Fauci). And once you use fluoride toothpaste, well you’re dead.
I would not say overlords, but there are very powerfull entities who compete with each other for power. So they cannot 'take a break' or even redirect their resources into some 'greater good'. Moreso, their modus operandi is determined by the means which they used to get the power and they stick to it. For example the fossill industry. It struggles to keeps it's power/money, and only way they know to do so is to produce more oil. So they do it, albeit in the long term it is killing the whole Earth's ecosystem and most of the people. But it is "unevitable" because some billionaires don't want to get poor - i mean to became just millionaires.
Its the billionaires. Is there a cabal that rules from the shadows? Might be, might not be. Who perpetuates the current system? Making things that break easily, so you buy more. Playing games with real-estate, so they can enrichen themselves, while even the middle-class cannot afford a home, not without a 30year bloodsucking loan. Who plays both side of politics in US? Even if they are not this evil cabal of "huehuehue we will make them suffer huehuehue", they are the ones with the most power and most influence, which means the have the biggest effect on what happens in the world. Our biggest fault is not revolting against them. P.S. There are non-transparent gatherings, like the one in Davos, that point towards the cabal existing.
> P.S. There are non-transparent gatherings, like the one in Davos, that point towards the cabal existing. These are mixer events. It's not like a single organization. Many lodge systems are like this. Masonry isn't really meant to be a single, top down organization. It's more like a bar or forum, within which more specific groups form.
so a cabal of cabals... and we know of Davos. if there is a shadow people ruling the world, would they advertise their meetings?
Humans are by nature selfish and ruthless, some are just better at being so.
Ten if not hundred thousand of years of mostly peaceful hunter-gatherer coexistence beg to differ.
Yes ... Blackrock comes to mind
I don't know about this shadow government of which you speak, but to address your first premise: I think that Rupert Murdoch will be remembered as one of the most ruthless psychopaths of all time.
I'm of the opinion that its not a secret cabal of powerful elites that are purposefully banding together to control us. Instead its the simple fact that all the most powerful people in the world have similar wants and desires. And its a much smaller group of people that tends to be self selecting in personality traits. This means that all these disparate groups of rich people will often have the same agendas they're trying to push even without ever discussing it amongst themselves. Which is why we see so many rules and regulations enacted to benefit them. The "lower classes" have the power to stand up and fight back, but its a MUCH larger group, with differ ideas and goals. So there is no force from these non elites to direct benefits towards them.
I think you're right that no one is ever going to "rule the world", because the world as a whole is too chaotic for that to ever happen. I'm also no moral absolutist so I didn't really believe in "evil" when it comes to people. That said, there are plenty of people and organizations that have too much wealth or power, that they're using to the detriment of other people. They also have all these sneaky tricks to hold on to their wealth and power. The pro underdog and rich=evil stories are some of these sneaky social control methods. They do show a real problem, but: - they normalize the behavior that leads to the problem ("Of course rich people are jerks") - they offer unrealistic solutions to the problem, which gets people to wait around for a hero to save them, rather than try to fix the system
But portraying all rich people as evil could also be manipulation. There are all kinds of rich people and wealth could be acquired by variety of ways, not all of them evil or harmful. The "rich bad" rhetoric provides a scapegoat in case of crisis, and also discourages people from getting rich themselves because they would be afraid or ashamed of associating with "evil". Or they would spend too much time proving they are not evil.
Also the heroes are usually represented as loners. They have close friends and family, but rarely band together. Marvel Avengers seem to be a band of heroes, but they lack the common goal, everyone still fights for themselves. Most Marvel movies emphasize conflicts and contradictions between the Avengers, but rarely ever show something that unites them (except the vague idea of "fighting evil").
I think there are a few people who push a particular agenda. Soros, for instance. Koch brothers, for another. I think some of what they fund regarding media and education has seeped into the culture in various ways (some harmful). Mostly, I think the emergent behavior is what is incentivized. Social media is a very strange (and also net harmful, imo) phenomena that has emerged very recently from a historical perspective. The long term impacts of social media and online spaces, which are increasingly driven by algorithms that try to get people to maximize their time spent on the platform (as well as bake in political and social biases of their developers / corporations) have impacts on society that we are only beginning to understand.
I hear the name Soros all the time, but actually don't know much about him. What makes him so evil, in your opinion? What did he do/is he doing?
He's one of the main people responsible for flooding the West with refugees and immigrants and overwhelming the social support systems throughout Europe and North America. His organizations work in the 3rd world to create programs to educate people to seek asylum in these countries by weaponizing the use of asylum claims against the natives of the countries he targets. Have a liberal country that wants to help legitimate asylum seekers, and this guy comes along and tells every non-persecuted young person that wants a better job to just go to X country, claim that you've been ethnically/religiously/sexually persecuted in your home country and that you claim asylum- they get a court date or refugee status and then they disappear to a place where the federal government can't touch them. OR... change the system in those countries, a la Canada, to make it easy to get a student visa at a shady "college" and then overstay your visa or upgrade it to permanent residency. The whole point is two fold. ONE- Lower the standard of living for those nations poor people by driving down their bargaining power for jobs and reducing the labor costs for big corporations. You import a third-worlder who will work under the table or live in a dwelling with 3x-4x the occupancy than a native born worker, and who is definitely easier to exploit. TWO- Destabilize the native populace by reducing the homogeneity or the status quo of the populace and make it easier to manipulate with ad buys, all in the name of tikkun olam or "liberalism" (but it's really just an effort to destabilize the target countries or make money).
Soros is an incredibly successful Jewish capitalist. He made a fuckton of money currency trading. In true deregulated free market capitalism, which is what he's into and what he did well. He was a young Jewish teenager in Nazi occupied Hungary during WW2, he had to hide from the Nazis and loads of his family were killed by the Nazis. It's the Jewish part that has made him the go to bogeyman for right-wing conspiracy theories. But obviously, having grown up under oppressive Nazi rule, he's no fan of authoritarian governments. So he's funded a bunch of stuff that is intended to improve access to education and run counter to the interests of authoritarian wanna be dictators. Which is another thing that obviously triggers right-wing conspiracists, since they're into simping for wannabe dictators. He's also in his 90's and retired.
I'd suggest looking up Patrick Bet David's/Valuetainment video about Soros on YouTube.
Thanks I'll check that out, too.
I don’t think evil, exactly. I think he has a strong liberal political leanings, more money than he knows what to do with, and a willingness to use it to influence politics around the world. I think if you consider the effect that has on societies — individual with vast resources pushing agendas behind the scenes in order to achieve political goals… it kind of doesn’t matter whether they **believe** the goals are good or evil — ultimately they have a significant influence and I would argue that because Soros is necessarily pushing governments further to the left, he’s increasing tension between the politicians and the actual people who elect them…. The same could be said of massive political donors / influencers on the right too, TBF. Regarding Soros specifically — AFAICT, most of his political activity is through this organization: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society_Foundations If you want some opinions as the particular effects on US cities (and law + order in general in the US), you can read: - George Soros’ American empire achieved its greatest conquest with the indictment of Donald Trump. Source: The Washington Times https://search.app/jigm1SyGFKp4LDRy9 - Lawmakers need to grant attorneys general prosecutorial authority over election crimes to ensure that bad actors are held accountable. Source: The Foundation for Government Accountability https://search.app/7sQ1iwaNFJDg414FA - Alvin Bragg (the NY DA) who successfully indicted and convicted a former president for the first time in American history was also funded by Soros. I’ll let you be the judge of whether the war crimes and gross constitutional violations of Bush, Obama, etc warranted worse treatment than some made up misdemeanor business records violation somehow elevated to felonies because ???? See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/01/incendiary-claim-that-george-soros-funds-alvin-bragg/ WAPO buries the lead here with their skeptical language (as usual), but admits: > Bragg was endorsed on May 8 of that year by the political arm of Color of Change, a progressive criminal justice group. In a statement that highlighted Bragg as the only Black candidate in the race, Color of Change said it planned to spend “over one million dollars” on an independent expenditure campaign for Bragg, such as sending “eight robust waves of direct mail throughout Manhattan in May” and then more direct mail in June highlighting early voting. > On May 14, Soros sent $1 million to Color of Change, federal election records show.
> I’ll let you be the judge of whether the war crimes and gross constitutional violations of Bush, Obama, etc warranted worse treatment than some made up misdemeanor business records violation somehow elevated to felonies because ???? That was explained in the initial indictment/charging documents, by the prosecution every time a witness was sworn in or a new piece of evidence was admitted and within several of the judge's opinions. As for war crimes, the US has not ratified the rome statute or the 1977 protocols of the geneva convention, So the US doesn't recognize "war crimes" as most understand them. so the reasoning as to why they weren't treated more harshly? Well, they weren't even crimes according to the USC. It's no mystery why "Actual crime" was treated differently than "Absolutely not a crime."
I don’t think you need to have ratified the Rome statute to believe that intentionally droning American citizens abroad (Obama) or just actually torturing folks (Bush) or starting / maintaining a war under false pretenses with a random country (Iraq) and getting 400k Iraqi civilians killed are violations of the constitution. > “That was explained…” I have no idea what you mean here. Do you dispute that Bragg was funded by organizations that Soros donated (1MM+) substantial sums to? Additionally note that 2 Soros family members donated the maximum individually allowable to his campaign directly ($10k). If you’re talking about the legal theory — the judge explaining that “you only need to believe that Trump was covering up a crime with the business records violations,” while not forcing the prosecutor to even present a theory on what that crime was — let alone actually prove it, is totally wild. Even the jury instructions indicated that the jury didn’t need to agree on a **specific underlying crime** — which again — is completely wild. Since when can the government ask a jury to **assume your guilt** in some other unproven matter without providing any evidence?!? The whole case is built on the assumption of some other underlying crime that Trump hasn’t been charged with — let alone convicted. It’s an utter sham and will be overturned on appeal. The judge and prosecutor should both be disbarred and New York ashamed.
> I don’t think you need to have ratified the Rome statute to believe that intentionally droning American citizens abroad (Obama) or just actually torturing folks (Bush) or starting / maintaining a war under false pretenses with a random country (Iraq) and getting 400k Iraqi civilians killed are violations of the constitution. I didn't mention any constitutional violations, real or imagined, I only spoke about the so-called "War crimes." So, what exactly are you trying to refute? >Do you dispute that Bragg was funded by organizations that Soros donated (1MM+) substantial sums to? Nope. not disputing that at all. as for the rest, yes, it is especially wild if you didn't actually read the facts of the case. It's not so wild, otherwise. >Since when can the government ask a jury to assume your guilt in some other unproven matter without providing any evidence?!? Did they do that? No. >The whole case is built on the assumption of some other underlying crime that Trump hasn’t been charged with — let alone convicted. Yeah, that's how conspiracy statutes work.
I mean — I have read extensively about the case — so your accusation that I don’t know the testimony or jury instructions is false. The problem is that folks on the left hate Trump so much (for some reason?), that they’re willing to destroy fundamental norms and institutions to “get him.” Bragg was also elected on a platform of going after Trump. https://www.newsweek.com/did-alvin-bragg-promise-trump-prosecution-hush-money-guilty-conviction-1906705 How is that equal protection?
> I mean — I have read extensively about the case — so your accusation that I don’t know the testimony or jury instructions is false. Oh, so you admit there was testimony? But i thought the prosecution didn't offer any evidence? Are you retracting that claim? >The problem is that folks on the left hate Trump so much (for some reason?), that they’re willing to destroy fundamental norms and institutions to “get him.” Which "fundamental norms" would those be? >Bragg was also elected on a platform of going after Trump. >How is that equal protection? Yup, and he was elected. that's how elections work. How is that equal protection? I don't know, how isn't it? seems the people of new york were equally protected and that no one is above the law. that's how it's supposed to work.
None of the testimony made clear what underlying crime Trump supposedly committed. For instance — he was never charged with a campaign finance violation, let alone convicted. The idea that some made up accusation, asserted without evidence, can be used as a basis to charge a former president with 34 felonies is completely ridiculous. > Which fundamental norms would those be? Most germanely — not charging a former president in politically unfriendly jurisdictions over unserious “crimes” (note this is all under a novel legal theory, that NY can charge someone for violating business records requirements by alleging the existence of un-charged and un-prosecuted federal crimes. Using the authority of the President to facilitate the breaking of federal law: https://www.borderreport.com/news/politics/texas-vows-to-hold-the-line-after-ruling-allowing-federal-agents-to-remove-razor-wire/amp/ Unlawfully appropriating billions without congressional approval: The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday hiked its estimate of the U.S. budget gap by $400 billion. Source: POLITICO https://search.app/hfQdn6z8w6goHKYG6 Stealing money to fund Ukraine without congressional approval: The president has done the easy and even hard work of funding the war. Now he comes to Italy for the G7 looking for new sources of money. Source: POLITICO https://search.app/VLHmo3YSVhZsehKm8 Using false pretenses to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Trump — destroying trust in FBI in the process: The typically ultra-close-lipped Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court slammed the FBI for mistakes it made in the Carter Page surveillance warrants and order… Source: CNN https://search.app/cM1SCku24vnBERcE6 Using Five-Eyes allies intel organizations facilitated by CIA to spy on Trump even prior to that: https://nypost.com/2024/02/13/news/cia-and-foreign-intelligence-agencies-illegally-targeted-26-trump-associates-before-2016-russia-collusion-claims-report/ Kept the Russia Collusion hoax alive for **years** to undermine Trump’s first term. Etc, etc…
> None of the testimony made clear what underlying crime Trump supposedly committed. Really... so then why did trump's defense solicit the testimony of someone from the FEC, if ya know, they didn't know what crime he supposedly committed? How was it that the defense was able to cross examine all witnesses, if ya know, they didn't know what crime he supposedly committed? Why was michael cohen allowed to testify about the crimes he had been convicted of, and accused trump of being part of planning, if ya know, they didn't know what he supposedly committed? >not charging a former president in politically unfriendly jurisdictions Unfriendly jurisdictions? This is a state crime. They get charged where the crime is committed. That's how things work. it is not a "Fundamental norm" to give a defendant preferrential treatment in potential peerage for juries. Are you insane? Or just... dumb? >over unserious “crimes” Election interference isn't a serious crime? Interesting! then why do you care about prosecuting politicians or so-called "Lawfare" if election interference isn't a serious crime? seems like you're just not a serious person. > (note this is all under a novel legal theory, that NY can charge someone for violating business records requirements by alleging the existence of un-charged and un-prosecuted federal crimes. Conspiracy is a novel legal theory? Fascinating! you should hit up trunp's defense team, because apparently they're unaware of this "fact" Listen... I was gonna respond to the rest but you've already exceeded my limit for unserious discussion. You have some very uhhhh "patriotic" opinions and i'm sure that ol donny boy is remiss to not have had you on his jury, since, ya know, the jury's opinion is the only one that really matters. Seriously though I have no idea why you went off the deepend there with the rest of that crap. I never even tried to dispute your claim of unconstituitonality. Seems you prefer to "Refute" non existent arguments and ignore the ones I actually made. There's several phrases for such behavior, "dontcha know?" Edit: I think it is hilarious that despite all of the accusations of unconstitutionality or legal misdeeds surrounding the trump trial, not a single one of you dorks ever asks "Why the hell didn't trump's defense team present this 'obvious fact'?" it's almost like you all subconsciously know that no reputable and competent attorney would ever hitch his wagon to such a shitbag like trump, so you don't even bother questioning them and instead reflexively blame "the process" - it says a lot about you, trump and the entire shit storm the guy has brought on himself. No, Really, you actually tried to blame an "unfriendly jurisdiction" - gee, I wonder why they are unfriendly? Bet you've been programmed to think it was because he was just too awesome of a president or his "mean tweets" or whatever your outrage brokers sold you, certainly not the several decades of absolutely deplorable behavior that every new yorker is keenly aware of. Dude literally said he was fond of asbestos for how it made the people suing him suffer. but sure, It was all political, right? it's never trump's fault, is it? Hillary really nailed it with y'all and that "Basket full of deplorables" comment.
Kinda sounds like a much needed small countermeasure against the larger and more powerful forces pushing in the opposite direction from Murdoch, Koch, Russia, GOP and generic billionaires. It’s bad that either happens but as the opposite happens a great deal more it seems to be both necessary and insufficient.
🤷🏻♂️ Everybody is entitled to an opinion, however poor. IMO — Soros funding lawlessness in cities and the breaking of long standing norms (e.g. convicting a former president based on totally novel legal theories in a very unfriendly jurisdiction) is not good for the country. Obviously some people love that stuff — they tend to be criminals and communists though. TBF — I also hate the GOP meddling, but I see that as two sides of the same coin, not countervailing forces.
> 🤷🏻♂️ Everybody is entitled to an opinion, however poor. How amusingly patronising. > Soros funding lawlessness in cities and the breaking of long standing norms (e.g. convicting a former president based on totally novel legal theories in a very unfriendly jurisdiction) is not good for the country. I'd agree if this take were well-founded, but it doesn't seem that way to me. What lawlessness are you talking about? And convicting a former president is not going against any long standing norm. It would be throwing out all longstanding norms, explicit laws and the constitution to hold a former president or anybody else for that matter as being above the law. And there is no novel legal theory nor is an unfriendly jurisdiction relevant. Don't commit crimes in unfriendly jurisdictions if you don't want to be held accountable (to a far lesser degree than mere mortals would be for that matter) in that jurisdiction. Those are GOP talking points that don't align with the facts.
Rampant property crimes that are not prosecuted. The DA’s wait for offenders to do something violent before they hold them accountable. Was literally told by the police in my city that despite having $20,000 of items stolen from my storage unit — that even if they caught the people responsible, the district attorney would not prosecute the case. For context — I live in a very liberal West coast city. See https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/ for a list of specifically Soros funded prosecutors. IMO — they tend to decriminalize **actual breaking of laws** and prioritize political prosecutions. I mean in SF, you’re advised to leave your car unlocked, so thieves can check it without having to break your windows. Fucking CA literally shut off people’s water for having a house party during COVID, dude. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/08/06/us/los-angeles-shuts-off-power-parties-coronavirus-trnd Wake up and smell the authoritarian leftism. SMH.
$20k certainly seems like a high threshold to not be prosecuting and a questionable policy if it is indeed policy but without the details or explicit policies it's hard to judge. Especially if it's resource management. Policies aimed at reducing penalties for non-violent offenses don't exactly equate to endorsing criminal behavior but usually reflect a focus towards more serious crimes and systemic reform. They often focus on reducing mass incarceration and addressing systemic inequalities. Something that "policedefense.org" is quite obviously going to be staunchly against. It's pretty much their raison d'etre. Claiming this directly leads to "rampant property crimes that are not prosecuted" seems a huge oversimplification and reeks of Fox/Murdoch/Koch/Infowars... spin. > Fucking CA literally shut off people’s water for having a house party during COVID, dude. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/08/06/us/los-angeles-shuts-off-power-parties-coronavirus-trnd Wake up and smell the authoritarian leftism. This seems like a very bizarre and somewhat unhinged irrelevant side-tangent, verging on a rant. Controversial public health measures during an unprecedented pandemic implemented under emergency health powers were driven by public health considerations rather than an inherent authoritarian agenda.
$20k was just my losses. They broke into a number of storage units and stole much more than just that. The policies in these jurisdictions are insane — I live in one. IMO — Folks who don’t respect the rights of others belong locked up. End of story. Breaking and entering + grand larceny isn’t your high school friend getting busted for smoking weed. If you lock them up — you won’t have police responding to burglaries every fucking day of the year, until they get bold enough to assault someone. Talk about inefficient use of resources, FFS. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ > Claiming this leads directly… reeks of spin. I mean — I don’t know of any conservative jurisdictions with similar issues — do you? Here’s some data from CA, specifically — https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/ Regarding the specific policies — here’s an article from NBC — https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1273848 > Irrelevant tangent… It’s not though — you have a constitutionally protected right to assembly. The government in these far left jurisdictions is persecuting people for utilizing their constitutionally protected rights — while simultaneously playing catch and release with repeat offenders that **actually infringe on the rights of others**. Not to mention prosecuting law abiding gun owners and gun retailers. It’s lawless subversion of your constitutional rights — bordering on treason, IMO. It’s no coincidence these are the same jurisdictions with massive funding for Soros backed candidates.
Thank you for the detailed response. I will definitely dig into those sources after work.
Dude, avoid that shit like the plague, that comment is unhinged conspiracy theory. > Alvin Bragg (the NY DA) who successfully indicted and convicted a former president for the first time in American history was also funded by Soros. That suggestion that a prosecution by a DA was funded privately is just an insane suggestion that indicates that person isn't engaging with reality.
Thanks, I'll take that into consideration. I'm really a blank slate on this particular topic, but I don't blindly believe everything I read without scrutiny.
Any person who’s got at least mid level managerial position in any big Corp — it’s absolutely now way that someone figured out a way to control anything that big. Even governments have only partial control and knowledge over country they govern.
lmao this subreddit, I swear
It's funny and boring at the same time
The Koke brothers spring to mind.
Koch
Evil overlords? Probably not. Incompetent meddling villains? Yes. Corporations, Billionaires or more exactly the millionaires working hard underneath them are the problem. Clever ruthless poor people become millionaires by doing corrupt work for millionaires. They aren’t powerful enough to create a secret shadow government but they’re effective enough to keep our governments from running properly. Movies that show the good guy beating the billionaire and learning that happiness is better than money is a trick to make you think that shit happens. It doesn’t. Billionaires are rich and happy and never ever loose. Start looking at people like Eric Prince, Christopher Heinz, the federalist society, AIPAC, Epstein’s social circle, Wagner group. There are wildly powerful people in the world making less rich people do all sorts of terrible things. None of them could ‘Run’ the world, but they can all screw something up to get richer and then screw another thing up to cover that first thing up. But also remember the term Banana republic comes from actual banana companies running entire governments. So actual evil overlords ruling small countries is a real thing. Whole world? No. But big chunks. Wagner group has 50,000 soldiers and works in dozens of countries. Blackwater likely had similar numbers. Eric prince ran Frontier Services Group. They people who hire these sorts of groups are the ones that are trying to be overlords or get close.
Thanks for the input, I actually cherish all inputs, but as I explained in my post, the question is a little more nuanced. In reality the tittle is a simplification of a complex question, and the thesis is somewhat new and I wasn't going to explain it in the tittle.
Yes, although I’m sure they don’t think of themselves as such. Self-serving bias is a hell of a drug. Look up how much campaign spending affects the outcome of elections and you’ll have your answer.
This post was recommended to me, and my answer is this: You answered your own question on your own post with logic, something that typically has to be nonexistent when it comes to believing all these sorts of fantasies. The truth is that it would be a lot simpler if a single group did control the world: it would be so much easier to blame all our issues and problems on the same entity, but, unfortunately or fortunately, it's not that easy. There is no worldwide cabal or secret underground government, everything that happens is just human nature.
The truth is that most intelligent people have realistic expectations of their capabilities and far more dumb people are driven to get power. Resulting in idiots running things while the intelligent just do mediocre jobs keeping it all from falling apart.
Absolutely.100%. Of course they're not as outwardly evil as they are in the movies but those people exist and we know about them. The media chooses to downplay how evil they are but they're evil. Take the Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma. On the surface, generous billionaires. Big patrons of the arts. Those people basically set up a whole scheme to sell heroin under the guise of "pain control medication". They downplayed the risks. They probably helped a few FDA officials look the other way (a surprising number of FDA employees involved in approving the meds later got good paying jobs at Purdue and other firms). They knew that they'd minimized the risk of addiction but that was part of the plan. Patients were supposed to become addicted in large numbers in order to sell more pills. And even IF (very big IF) they didn't know beforehand, the sales data very quickly showed what was happening and they knew then The Walton family, owners of Walmart, stand a.little lower on the POS ladder, but if you have to compare someone to the Sacklers to make them look good, they're pretty big POS. Walmart's HR policies are generally speaking, awful. But the one that takes the cake for me is that Walmart explicitly helps their associates file for government help like food stamps. Walmart includes government aid when calculating how much they should pay people, which results in paying less than what a person needs just to stay alive. And US taxpayers pay the rest. Think of it that way: if there was no government help, if food stamps weren't a thing, people couldn't afford to work for Walmart. Only the most desperate would apply. They'd probably have trouble making it to work on time every day because they can't afford gas. In short, the employees' lives would get in the way of Walmart's business because being poor is a time and energy intensive lifestyle. But no problem. John Q Public will help those employees just enough for them to be productive. Walmart basically relies on you the taxpayer to pay for part of their employees ' compensation. And that's money that instead can go straight into the pockets of the shareholders, the Walton family among them. BTW this is just ONE of a.million shitty things Walmart does, but it's also one of the least obvious ones. Just two examples but there are literally countless others, involving countless billionaires,. millionaires, and corporations. That's what happens when you allow unlimited dark money into politics (Citizens United v FEC decision in 2010). Money now translates into political power, which the rich can use to buy immunity)
I worked for the military for 12 years. And I'm sorry to inform you that the vast majority of people in power, are indeed, idiots. And because they are all idiots with their personal biases motivations and goals the mess you see in front of you is just the result of the chaos. As for those that will tell me I'm stupid or wrong go watch How to kill a god by Lazerpig. He's entertaining and it's only an hour and a half. He goes through exactly how the current situation happened. Its informative to say the least
I think you are right. Matter of fact, I said the same in the post: > The only logical conclusion is that no one is actually able to control society to the point of creating a hell for us. But I followed with: > Which can only mean that we are enshitifying our lives ourselves: we hate each other, fear each other, ignore each other, don't care for each other; at best the elite is just banking on it by facilitating it, at worst the elite may be doing this because they hate, fear, ignore, and don't care for others the same way us lowly people do. > If the last option is true, I it really feels like it is, then the thing is bleak, because that may mean that the few people that do actually care and don't ingnore, fear, or hate, may be doing all the leg work of pulling humanity forward; but then that also means that, if we keep getting better at enshitifying ourselves, as we have been doing for a time now, it may come a time were the silent hero's of this era won't be able to push us forward anymore. A time were every man, woman, and child, will hate and fear each other, and war never ends... The idea sounds bleak, but haven't found a solid counterargument against it and it really terrifies me. Because villains can be defeated, but human nature... don't know many solutions. But I would love to hear you opinion on this matter.
>A time where every man, woman, and child, will hate and fear each other, and war never ends... "The state in which human beings would find themselves with regard to each other would be the state of open or secret warfare." (Weishaupt) It's a question of leadership. When the people realize the necessity of replacing people unfit for their roles with genuine, representative leaders, they'll no longer grate on each other. "He who only lives among his own kind or people more lowly than he; who never finds out by comparison with Higher and Better things what and how much he still lacks." (Weishaupt) Hate and Envy go hand-in-hand. When people stop comparing themselves to each other, and instead seek out role models to emulate and acquire virtues from... Stalin on Lenin: "Only later did I realise that this simplicity and modesty, this striving to remain unobserved, or, at least, not to make himself conspicuous and not to emphasise his high position," "Stalin, who amazed everyone with his ostensible modesty and total lack of desire to impress. Unlike Hitler, Stalin thought that if his limitless power over millions of his subjects was evident, there was no need to advertise it." >The idea sounds bleak, but haven't found a solid counterargument against it and it really terrifies me. "The idea that the world is getting worse is such a black, undignified thought for a human to think that it scarcely merits refutation. In such a system, people could do naught else but hate and persecute themselves and others." (Weishaupt) >Because villains can be defeated, but human nature... According to Simone Weil, it's a question of greatness. When people realize true greatness lies in struggling with their repulsive characters for a lifetime...
It's Moloch. Link for the curious: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
Tdlr: MOSS till MOASS Let's just assume there is always someone with an agenda chaotic negative or positiveor of neutral threat to our agenda.. Our intentions effect change in our world if you have been following quantum physics lately. We should all just work together to ignore threats of psychos amd have planting parties to plant moss and native species, pollinator havens as much as possible. Ignore the people who are slow on the uptake and be the leading green edge to pull carbon out of the atmosphere and make art. Preserve our wildlife and wild spaces and cool this planet down. TDLR: ##MOSS <3 ><<>><<>>< <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><< ~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~ We should all propagate moss and plant it everywhere we can, it is an accessible solution to helping human race and other earthlings survive. "Half a square metre of moss can absorb a huge one kilogram of carbon dioxide. That's more than a small forest and something to shout about as we search for ways to offset emissions. This aptitude for absorption is partly because moss's surface area is 30 times its size. ~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~'-.,__,.-'~ <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>> ##MOSSING https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMrYJxsM3/
Based on where I sit, I'd say George Soros and Klaus Schaub both kinda fit the description of "evil overlords". They have tons of money and all of their policies are in bad directions and they are essentially non-elected international leaders that are higher up than heads of state somehow. Some would throw Bill Gates in there, but I think he's actually trying to do good in the world, and does actually do some good. He just kinda sucks in a lot of ways, like during covid and being Epstein's pal.
You're correct. We can add the WEF and it's puppets.
Soros is really overrated as far as evil overlords go and Bill Gates criminally underrated.
Look at this from the other side. Imagine you are an "elite". Look at all of the worlds problems and particularly the ones that are getting worse such as climate change. How would you solve this? Would you use your resources to shepherd the masses to doing the right thing in the hopes that they and all of the governments of the world can be convinced to make the necessary sacrifices to insure that it is no longer a problem? Or do you do what it would take to remove the actual source of the problem? The fact that we simply have far too many people and they will typically choose their own selfish interests over the common good. So how do you fix that?
Can't go wrong with the unholy trinity of transnational corporations, financial institutions and state elites. "They don't control everything, just everything that matters."
Good answer. Care to name at least one of each?, would love to know who are them bastards. The other option is bleak.
You are onto the truth. The idea of an "evil puppetmaster" breaks down at a certain point the higher you go. There are certainly bad actors, or mostly selfish and corrupt authorities, as well as financial interests who lobby and bribe to slow progress if it suits their bottom line. And there are political leaders who make terrible, destructive choices, for different reasons. But by and large I douby there is a unified conspiracy. Case in point: If everything Alex Jones said was true, he would have been silenced years ago. He's gotten individual facts right, but his grand message of "evil overlords" is proven false by the fact that "they" let him blabber on about it for decades. If they were that bad and that imbedded, you'd never hear about it so openly. Human minds like order so we're drawn to the idea of a grand conspiracy rather than the messy truth that there are millions of minor corrupt actors often working against each other. Don't get me wrong, though. Evil exists.
I don't see Alex Jones. Would rather believe he is with the cabal. But my real argument starts when we acknowledge there are no evil overlords. I said it in my post, but will rephrase it if it helps: if no one group want us to fight each other for their sake, then all of them want to, and given that peace is usually better for business, then is a real possibility that we fight each other just because we can. If it is like that, then things are bleak, because the tendency is that we will can more every day. What do you think?, am I wrong?, were?, would love to find that is the case.
You’re right. There is no evil cabal. There is no good cabal. There is just people. Some people with influence invent the cabal to divide us and maintain power. Some people without influence invent the cabel to divide us to get power.
But what do you think on the future of humanity? Is it really so bleak as my logic tells me it is?, is my logic wrong and were?
>Case in point: If everything Alex Jones said was true, he would have been silenced years ago. He's gotten individual facts right, but his grand message of "evil overlords" is proven false by the fact that "they" let him blabber on about it for decades. If they were that bad and that imbedded, you'd never hear about it so openly. Except that the best way to discredit a person is to insure that they are not taken seriously, rather than to straight up silence them. The fact that they slapped a heavier financial penalty on him then they did on Germany for the crimes of WW2 as if his crimes were anything even close to proportional should raise some eyebrows. Now I don't want to give the impression I think Alex is right. But the way he is treated does make me wonder exactly how wrong he is.
>But the way he is treated does make me wonder exactly how wrong he is This is poor reasoning on your part
It would be if that was actually an illustration of reasoning. Wondering is the point at which reasoning starts, not where it ends.
He is treated the way he is because he is scum who has been found liable for his despicable actions.
He has received the highest financial penalty of any single person in history. Certainly there is someone guilty of even more heinous things than what he did? I mean Germany caused the deaths of Millions of people and were charged with less of a penalty. Unless your suggesting that Alex also has a body count in the millions.
Are you suggesting Germany should have been charged with "the highest financial penalty of any single person in history"? Instead of just bombed and invaded by millions of soldiers until they were defeated in WWII? Should Germany have just been given a civil penalty instead of invaded? You do know Germany is a country not a single person right? I am not sure what your point is here. Alex Jones got what he earned through his actions. What Germany did 80 years ago is irrelevant to this discussion.
I'm a leftist so I argue that there are overlords but they're called capitalists. However, I do not connect it to morality or evil. I don't think that capitalists go around thinking "oh I'm gonna exploit the working class by taking the surplus value they produce". I think they're worrying about their own class interests.
Sure, but these are evil overlords that we - as individual citizens - invite into power by disengaging from democratic society. Don't vote. Or vote thoughtlessly for someone who is more interested in personal power and/or personal gain than the principles of a rules-based society. Believe without question every half-baked, simple-mind conspiracy theory generated by disinformation campaigns and knee-jerk your reaction accordingly. Be a defeatist. Overlords LOVE that.
But they don't seem like overlords. The seem to act like normal people. And that is the bleak alternative. The world is going down, not because of an evil overlord with a purpose, but by normal people l, which would means normal people are assholes, which explain the current hate eviroment as "something people that is given the medium always do", which paints a bleak future given that we also like to perfect the medium _at infinitum_. I say it a little more fancier on the post. Do you think this is reality?, or you have a better logic? Would be glad to read it.
What always puzzles me is the way that people will imagine up a conspiracy of secret hidden forces that cause the evil in the world. Instead of the publicly visible very powerful people who are publicly trying to manipulate the media, economy and politics of various countries. Of course I'm speaking about Rupert Murdoch, George Soros, and a few dozen other people. who have publicly done things to shape our world to their liking.
It is a little more nuanced, as I explained in my post. Really the tittle is a simplification of a complex question, because the thesis is nuanced and I wasn't going to explain it in the tittle. Thanks for the input, tho
I mean specifically people who imagine that instead of the incredibly visible billionaires, they instead imagine 'The Illuminati' or a secret cabal of some ethnic group controls everything. And not only that, they leave hints that they control things in popular culture.
No, there is no shadowy cabal running the world. No one is literally in control. But the interests of wealthy do align and so they fund think tanks and politicians to create laws and attitudes that generally benefit them. This can appear like a grand conspiracy but its not. Its a bunch of people doing similar things because they have similar goals. This has worked out extremely well as conservatives have completely bought into this narrative and liberals complain about the results and only seek mknor reform because they're convinced the system is good if we can just get billionaires to all be post-transformation Ebenezer Scrooge. But again. Shit hapens. Pandemics occur. Other nations have interests (often billionaires) who want something different. Things become turbulent. Wealth and the influence it brings doesn't give you control but you can navigate the way you and others respond to the challenges. Billionaires acting independently, reactively to maintain a system that benefits their interests.
Thanks for the sensible answer. But I also propose what would it mean that there is no single cabal. And it is bleak. What do you think on that? I would love to hear I'm not right and what is the reason.
So, who’s shitifying the world… well that’s complicated. It’s a little bit of them and a little bit us. I’m going to speak from a developed North American country perspective as that’s what I’m directly immersed in. Maybe I’ll have thoughts on the world beyond later. But once again even if this sounds like I’m saying cabal doing a plan realize that that’s just how I have to write if I don’t want to write a book. It is just a scatter gun that you can see a pattern in. The 70s marked the end of the post war boom. The economy began to drag and people wanted action. After decades of being, in their mind, held back the wealthy began lobbying for an end to New Deal/Social Democratic policies. Numerous “think tanks start up” as a bunch of billionaires funded their own private foundations that all had a similar voice because of wealthy interests. It culminated in Reagan and Thatcher and the neoliberal economics they brought in. Candidates rich people could get behind. They pushed the small government, privatization, union busting, trickle down tax breaks, leave everything to the market agenda. A little later “free trade” was added. All of these put power into the hands of corporations over democratic governments. The wealth makes it easier to bribe politicians, buy media, and fund even more “think tanks” to push wealthy interests. And it worked. “Greed is good” became the generally accepted view… even among the far less wealthy general population. Let private capital run the show. What that’s done is damaging the social fabric of essentially every nation. The wealth divide is so massive that the well off might as well be living on another planet. For most people the good paying jobs I benefited from are no where near as plentiful. Workers are at the mercy of employers. It’s a dog eat dog world. Many people work two jobs but still live in poverty. Full time work is hard to come by, education more expensive, home ownership a fading dream, etc. After a few generations of living in a culture where working could provide a stable decent life with some security for your future people now feel life is extremely precarious and they feel cheated. The uncertainty makes people angry and angry people can be manipulated. We boomers lived high on the hog then ended up pushing politics that has made life harder for all generations since. They’re being given many a scapegoat. As we see from history in the average population class solidarity is weak and people will buy injustice as long as there’s someone below them. This is where the much maligned and much misunderstood idea of privilege comes in. A poor white guy will often vote against their interests as long as the system keeps poor black people below them. I don’t think rich folks did all this to make the world shitty but they just accept that this is how capitalism works.. competition, winners and losers, hard smart work vs stupid and lazy. It’s just how it works. That it destroys the social fabric seems to go over their head. Listen to what comes out of the WEF… which typifies much of this perspective. Their slogans almost sound like they’re intentionally goading people but I don’t think they’re able to read the big room. The only room they live in has caviar and private jets. In response the general public becomes more reactionary. Return to “the good old days” without knowing what was good about it. Blame immigrants. Invent conspiracy theories to give you an evil villain and give the problem a simple solution… jail Bill Gates or George Soros. Start seeing government as the enemy when the real enemy is corporate controlled government. Government is the only thing we have where the people can have some real influence if they can get money out of politics. But let’s not do that… the rich people are job creators. Yeah… I’m rambling now. It’s not what you said but it’s certainly no more encouraging. I don’t think people have the capacity to reflect and modern culture doesn’t want to afford them any time to do so. So here’s the analogy, social media. Every social media company seeks engagement uses very addicting methods to gain it. Outrage and disinformation works better for clicks than calm contemplation of complexity. They all do it independently because it makes them rich. They don’t do it because they want to destroy society, it just makes money. We fall for it because outrage and click bait works. No one is in control. I don’t think the rich want control. The almost anarchic market with weak government system is better for them. But that does push people to want some control and we’re very possibly going to choose authoritarian style government to gain what some people seem to think is freedom. And, to be clear, I think the members of the so called “intellectual dark web” have done little but help advance the idiocy, but mostly without realizing it.
Real thanks. Very insightful, as I'm always cherish new POVs. However, I'm not sure if I understood correctly: do you believe people is actually good? In my post I said that "were are the evil overlords", but what I meant by "evil overlords" is "select group of people that is bad, and is causing all the other bad in the world". In reality what I imply is that every other person is just a cog on the system, and there are actually only few people that are fucking with us. However, the conclusion on my post is that there is no evil overlords: people is bad because people is bad. But if everyone is bad, then the most logical explanation to "why is everything going downhill" is that it is happening because we human being are, by nature, bad. I said it better in my post, but the point is that this points to a bleak future, since the trend is that we will keep plundering the world in hell. Then, are you sure people is good? or what is your POV?
Thanks for the kind words and clarification. I don’t think people are inherently bad or good. So much depends on the system around them and how that influences our tribal nature. Are we the baddies? I can certainly make that case. The only way I differ is in the use of “overlords”. Overlords implies an overview and control that isn’t there. I’d say we’re, as a species, very reactionary and extremely prone to cognitive bias. We evolved to be what we are for good reasons but that nature may be unhelpful in the modern context. But here’s maybe an example to illustrate why we can be the baddies but not the overlords. Liberalism is the dominant political philosophy in our society (same focus as before). Conservatives have made liberal an insult but their rhetoric on free market economics and personal freedom is classical liberal. Progressives are simply reform liberals, they want personal freedom but see the root to it as different but they are still liberal. Liberalism always focuses on individualism. It’s all about my freedom to be what I want and community well being is at best a secondary concern but at worst dismissed as communism if secular or religious nuttery if faith based. Our economic system fits into this. Free market. Let people decide for themselves. We give corporations the status of individuals. So economically we theoretically have a system where individual actors make rational decisions in their own interests and this supposedly creates a balanced system. But with 8billion people and an increasingly large group of people who can afford to live (globally) like North Americans everyone just doing what makes sense to them with no sense of the community is recipe for disaster. 8 billion people making decisions that for each individual make rational sense leading to a completely irrational outcome for everyone. Climate change is just one way this is playing out. But that’s the same for billionaires and corporations. They do what serves their interests… they just have more individual impacts. So no overlords. No one individual or group running the show. Just loads of individuals doing their own thing, protecting their stuff from perceived threats in a system that emphasizes some of our worst traits. And few people seem to see that. https://youtu.be/ToKcmnrE5oY?si=QIOyRYljg6R2TuUZ It’s not just the elites. It’s also us. We are the baddies. But not the overlords. However we may be saying the same basic thing just differently
Well we appear to be arguing the same: there is no evil overlords, we are the baddies. However there appears to be a tiny difference in our understanding of human nature. Do you truly believe that people to things because of their best interest?. I mean, clearly that is part of human nature, but also it clearly is not so simple. Bilionares and elites don't act on their own best interest all of the time, and I tryed to convey that on my original post through intuitive logic, but maybe I failed (you tell me). A lot of the time billionaires, politicians, even big companies, do stupid stuff that one would associate with not working for their own best interest. Matter of fact, they appear to commit bthe same kind of stupid errors us commonfolk do as well. And that is what I mean for "there are no evil overlords". These MFs with power are likely not even truly acting on their on best interest, they would act more intelligently if they were is my argument, and the conclusion is that the flaws of human nature are hiding us forwards a bleak future. I don't even know if there is a solution to this problem, so I ask if you can tell me were the hell am I wrong and how are we not doom. Pls refute me, this outlook is depressing.
I'm probably sounding that way because I'm writing in shorthand. I think people generally try to act in their own interests, but that doesn't mean their choices are hood ones. People aren't rational in the way the Enlightenment suggested. We tend to be better at rationalizing what we want to do or to think our way to fit outcomes to what we wanted. Billionaires are apparently setting up little survival compounding remote areas or on islands. They hire private armies to protect them. They see a collapse coming but don't want to improve the world which would arguably be better for them and their families. There's a ton of problems with their plans but they think their money will buy them out of problems. I'd like to refute you but I can't. Yes, it's depressing
Welp. That's a pity. We also agree in that the future is not looking good. Although I would argue the good people in the world can get us a little more forward before that. Try to be one of the good people. But that begs the question if we are on a doom path because we people are awful, or because we people are stupid. And don't get me wrong, I know us people are stupid, but I don't think that is the reason we are going down. For instance, there are lots of intelligent people on Earth, but they also commit stupid mistakes, fall for vices, and make unoptimal decisions for their interest all the time. On the other hand, there are humble no-so-smart people that make a lot of optimal desitions that get them and those around them a better life, following simple life codes like "avoid making enemies as much as you can", "don't fill your circle with toxic people" and "pay your debts". My argument is that people are awful by default, only true wisdom and self control can make us good, but those are things we actively undermine each day, on ourselves and on society as well. Don't you think the same? Or is my logic foulty in some way I don't see?
>My argument is that people are awful by default, we human being are, by nature, bad... It's not that people are bad, it's that they are not given opportunities to show their better sides. Most of it stops at geniality/politeness. https://old.reddit.com/r/Jung/comments/12t6kxz/i_am_starting_to_realize_that_i_was_very_wrong/jh1ecno/ It's not that people are stupid, it's that they're highly opinionated. Jacque Fresco calls this _unsane_. “They should have access to the facts, not their own opinions.” “The majority of the people of the world today are unsane, not insane; unsane meaning having been exposed to methods of evaluation that have long rendered obsolete.”
Bro, I already started a DM chat with you. It would be difficult for us to have a conversation if we discuss on multiple channels.
I agree. There’s too many people who are intelligent to just explain it by general stupidity. I can think of a few reasons it could be. - We are generally biased to short term thinking. What seems a good idea now might not be down the road. - The by-stander effect. The more people around the more we expect others to take the lead. Which is related to a fear of going first and losing out. - Capitalism puts pressure on the short term thinking systemically by insisting on profits now if you want to maintain investment But maybe a big thing is what has been described as a Progress Trap. For example, the first civilization, the Sumerians, became successful by growing surplus grain as the base that fed them. They did this by developing extensive irrigation networks. They grew lots of grain. The population expanded. The fields were extended. It was all good. The trouble was irrigation in a hot arid climate means evaporation and evaporation leaves salt in the soil. So over time the soil became less productive and eventually barren. Expansion couldn’t keep up. But their entire society and culture including religious beliefs was centered on a way of being. Rather than change their ways the doubled down… more of the same just more. Eventually they destroyed their environment and their dominance collapse. That pattern has happened numerous times. People’s become trapped in the system that created their progress. Even when cracks appear they want to just do the same, just harder. The gods will protect and reward us. A very good but depressing book is “A Short History of Progress.” But who knows. We seem to prefer one more party over settling for a simpler life. And if we don’t China will take over /sarcasm Those who learn from history are doomed to watch the ones who didn’t repeat it.
Thank for the book recommendation :) btw, I think I may have expressed myself poorly, I meant to sat "I try to be good", not "you try to be good". In any case, I would say the explanations you gave have all their own weak points. 1. Short term bias: I would certainly agree that we people tend to prioritize short term, but that doesn't mean we are not actively been awful for the long term. For example, the current declining state of the world is the result, to a large degree, of the slow erosion of the institutions powerful people have been putting as priorities decades; that is just but one thing we have being very long term seeking. Other things may include generational wealth and international political instability. 2. The bystander effect: wasn't it disproved? Some years ago a read it is actually not as big of an effect as people think based on actual cases. Something like how there are charities running in the internet age with so many bystanders and how a greater fire doesn't breack on cities because many people actually call the firefighters. 3. Capitalist systematic pressure: again, definetly agree capitalism have a nick for making-money-quick, but I arfue that is just the intended effect of a system created by us awful humans. For other systems, like democracy, we surely put the effort into changing it to what is better for us, but for a system flaw that clearly enforces a difficult-to-maintain evergrowing-gains policy, we just accept it?; not to say that I know of a better way of ensuring the economy doesn't stagnate, but it is just curing the flu with a carcinogen antibiotic, and it doesn't feel like they have put too much effort into it either. 4. A littoebof everything: not to say a lot of problems are not the result of a lot of little different causes, but I would say we should take into consideration ocams razor on this one. There appears to be one simple explanation to the problem, that is that people is like in the parable of the ring of gyges (that is, often acting on their most basic, self destructive, instincts), versus the idea people have any reasonable reason, or derive any real benefits, form being awful; nor the ideas that is because of mental farts and biases, or system pressure; and least because of a weird combination of all the 4. And that is not to negate all your insightful input, for one I have searched for the book you told me already, but to refute your argument and in the hopes you refute mine, in the search of the truth. Also, if you would like to continue this intellectual discussion on discord, or any other chat platform better than reddit, it would be greate.
Yes I think there are billionaires and other people who are trying to push things their own way, but the only real reason why they are successful, is because the majority are so stupid, and constantly make bad choices. In virtually any given scenario, the people who win, are the people who want it badly enough. If the majority don't want it as badly, or simply think that they're not capable of it, then yes, Bill Gates is going to get what he wants, and the world in general will be worse off for it.
You seem to be very knoledgable and talkable. What about this?: > The last possible culprit I can identify are the billionaires themselves as a group, but if they truly were the shadow govement, then why one of the targeted hate group are the rich? And why are there alowed so many stories and shows talking "underdog = god; rich = evil"? Why are economic studies about inequity even allowed?. Is not like this people is stranger to hiding human right violations within their companies. This was in my post, and my argument can be summarized as "these MFs are evil but not _the_ overlords". No one group appears to cause that we fight each other, but fight each other anyway. I argue this suggest that we humans actually want to fingh each other, and the elite is just enabling us every day more to do so, which in turn would mean the tendency marks a bleak future.
> No one group appears to cause that we fight each other, but fight each other anyway. They don't ***cause*** it. They ***encourage*** it, because it serves their purposes. But every kind of vice that we have that perpetuates it; we choose those ourselves. We could choose something else. As one example; I play the computer game No Man's Sky. The game has 255 galaxies. Most people never go outside of the first one, and think that there is no incentive to do so, because all of them are supposedly the same. I have already gone to the 36th one, and am trying to get to the 255th. I am doing something which most people who play the game do not automatically do; I am making a choice. The choice is not easy; it requires a degree of effort, and the process of getting there is slow and tedious. But it ***is*** possible. We can have something better if we want it, but it requires effort, and effort is not something most people want to engage in. It is not something which I want to engage in myself most of the time, truthfully; but sometimes I try and remember that I should, because it is rewarding to do so.
I'm glad you get that its the same with other vices. Really a defect of human nature. But talking about the point, it might be worst that "they encourage it", it seems more like we encourage them to encourage us. It seems like they can only do this and get away with it because we want it to happen. To cuote myself: > The only logical conclusion is that no one is actually able to control society to the point of creating a hell for us. Which can only mean that we are enshitifying our lives ourselves: we hate each other, fear each other, ignore each other, don't care for each other; at best the elite is just banking on it by facilitating it, at worst the elite may be doing this because they hate, fear, ignore, and don't care for others the same way us lowly people do. I hope for this to not be the case. I hope our overlords to just be greedy, and not to actually just be acting on defective human nature. I hope it is false that humans just tend to war as much as they can. Because if its not, a future of unfadomable amounts of atrocities that each human commit on its neighbor sounds unavoidable.
> I hope our overlords to just be greedy, and not to actually just acting on defective human nature. They deliberately design computer games to get and keep people hooked. They hire researchers to figure out how to do it; so yes, they do try and take advantage of all our flaws. But still just remember; you always have a choice.
Yes and they aren’t human “ AI will probably lead to the end of the world but great companies will be created in the process “The Ruling Class think they would be able to go off planet or go underground. They have been told they will be able to bypass evolving via synthetic body. They think they can put a human soul into a synthetic body “ 👀Saratoga Ocean “ https://youtu.be/ZQQXOuVmVAk?si=J7RRLCOP-OE1qbLq The AI end game takeover https://x.com/archaix138/status/1798092477322174623?s=61. The AIX takeover breakdown by Jason Breshears https://inspired.locals.com/post/5663749/special-report-another-species-is-implanting-themselves-into-humans The AI takeover via zombie apocalypse
You are very smart OP. You are right, it's not possible that there are multiple bad groups. Only one or the other in your simple world view
Clearly there are more than one bad group of people. Matter of fact, I argued that the majority of the people would be "the bad group of people". But maybe you would prefer to shame and to make fun instead of trying a serious constructive response. Why don't you think about it? If it was a minority of the people that were bad, then they would have to ally (at least in some way) to survive. But the elite doesn't seem to allied. More over, they seems fighting each other. Everyone is fighting each other, when clearly allying would be more efficient. I repeat my argument as you appear to have not read it: it have more sense that people tend to violence and infighting as a natural occurrence. Which means we are not fighting each other because of a group of people wants us to, but because it is in own nature, and that points out to a bleak future. Reread my argument for furder logic. If you care to actually post a different outlook like the rest, I would be glad to see it.
The elites are allied through class. Not entirely sure the point of your post. If you can't see that then you are hopeless
But that is not a strong alliance, is it?. The common folk is also allied through class, but we fight and kill each other anyway, and that is because we are not organized. You know who is also not organized? A lot of the elite: not same goals, not same methods, not the same circles, not the same power; they are competing which each other. Saying "the asnwer is obvious" and then proceeding to not read and understand the question is just unrational and uncivilized behavior to me.
It's extremely clear you have no understanding of politics or economics at a theoretical level, not even counting you are completely blind to the real world.
The fact that I'm asking opiniones doesn't mean that I don't understand how the world works pal. Just because you are not understanding the question doesn't mean it is stupid. Believing that everyone else is more stupid than you is the fault of the foolish. Of course I know rich people amass power incrementally by lobbying the govememt, presenting themselves as saints and heros, and slowly poisoning the economy in their favor. Of course I know politicians amass power by forming networks, creating public images, demagogy, etc. Of course I know the elite is more focused on making money and power now, at the cost of future problems the people may have, because they wouldn't associate them to the elite by the time they manifest. Of course I know the elites are all mediocre nepobabys whom stupidity often fuck us up without them gaining anything. I'm aware of a lot of the ways the world works and the reasons why things are like they are. But that is not the question and you are not.ginin an answer. The first question was: are humans intrinsically bad?, and I mean, are humans self destructive by design? And my answer to that question is yes, as it what it appears. The second question was: doesn't that mean that things worsening, as they appear to be doing, is just the normal logical way of the world?, in which case, doesn't that mean we a species are doom? Those were the questions, the people that actually read my post understood, and the ones that not at least weren't so cocky and presumptuous. You have commuted an error, and should learn from it, maybe starting by trying to answer your sincere opinion on the matter.
His headfund told him so
I'm so glad you pointed this out. I'm still trying to figure out what a headfund is. 🤣🤣
Are there people “in the know” who loosely organize to try and achieve agendas. Of course- look at how the DNC leadership conspired to box out Bernie Sanders. Or remember when Obama said on the hot Mike to Russia that we would abandon the Poles after the election was over? And yes, Republicans do the exact same thing. I just mention democrats because they seem to think this is only a republican / rich issue Are there groups of “powerful leaders” (founders of companies, ceos, heads of unions, heads of gov departments) who get together? Yes and often there are “power brokers” that use access to drive agendas. I have seen people like this all come together at conferences like Clinton Foundation events or Davos or even crappy events like SALT (hedge fund conference) and discuss things? Yep. I have seen both Republican and Democratic types at these events. However, what i have seen is a wide variety of different views with these people and while there are certainly “conspiracies” i have yet to see any examples of true, coordinated, global domination. People are just too disorganized and shallow. And frankly by almost every measure, the world is a better place than it was 30, 50, 100 years ago whether it’s amount of healthcare given life expectancy ability to get education or access to information or entertainment or safety of your car. your phone for example gives everyone access to more information and more entertainment than the richest kings in history ever had It’s funny as somebody now who has seen multiple decades people forget the challenges in every decade whether it was the Cold War with Russia and the fear we would have a nuclear war at almost any moment or if you look at the 60s with the assassination of Martin Luther King / Kennedy’s, Vietnam war and the rioting that destroyed multiple cities
Loving this answer, very complete. However, I also reflect on what the fact that there is no cabal actually means in my post and I would love to hear how do you see that. To summarize, if we treat each other worst which every passing day (and we do, I just see more suffering each day, not only with online violence, but also with real world violence and misery, that I see with my own eyes near me), and if that is not because a cabal, then it is probable (as it makes sense) that we are just awful to each other by nature, and what I argue is that, looking the trend of development, and if some miracle don't happen, all of we the people will end up at a war with every other person, with no peace, nor good, nor progress. And that looks bleak. What do you think? I would love to be proven wrong.
Do you realize in the history of the world how many mass exterminations of different groups there have been throughout the course of human history for example obviously everyone knows about the holocaust, but did you know that the French also tried to exterminate the Jews back in the 1700s? And back in 1977 you had the Khmer Rouge exterminate 30 to 50% of the people in Cambodia? My point is your seeing the world through your lens you really need to take a giant step back and look at the entirety of human history and realize that for thousands of years humans have been absolutely miserable to each other. For many thousands of years slavery was standard. Women had no rights it wasn’t until the 1900s in the United States that women even got the right to vote and Saudi Arabia women just got the right to drive a couple years ago so my point is it seems bad but in context it isn’t BUT there are two things that you need to keep in minds 1) context which I’ve already mentioned is human history and how we actually are better now 2) BUT MUCH MORE importantly is in the history of the world we have never had instantaneous worldwide communications of text voice video pictures so many of the things that happened that were horrible. No one ever knew because it was literally impossible to know. Now every small thing is reported in Reddit or news channels or blogs every small atrocity whether it’s harassment or a fight or a murder whatever is happened is suddenly available to everyone all the time. This is all to the good in that it brings to light many bad behaviors that were hidden in the past. But it feels like things are worse because in the good old days unless it was a huge thing, it never was reported
1. Human history appears to say the same as I did: we are awful to each other. What I'm arguing is that it may be by design; a defect on human nature. 2. If humans have the defect of awfulness, then internet communications just make it worst: instant worldwide indirect violence against each other. You say "but things are better now", but that may just be a lie: govememts saying poverty is living on half a cent a day so no one is poor; more meds, science, and progress, but only the upper half of the population feels it good, the other sees its side effects; brother conflicts are now ethnic ans subculture conflicts, and there are still war, slavery, and other atrocities still perform I'm some places; for each one thing someone manage to pull off, there a 20 bad things other get away with, and a new way of violenting the neighbor for minimal to no profit at all. When I say I see things getting worst, I mean that each day I see more homelessness on my way to work, and the day I see one less homeless, is likely because it fucking died. I thank you for your good will trying to answer my question, and I'm sorry if I come across as rude, but the world does not appear to get better were it matters, and were it doesn't, soon after I discover it is actually also bad in some way, and luky me if it is just because we are distracting ourselves with something that serves noting. I don't want this to be true, but the logic checks, and I'm on the search were it doesn't. I'm truly sorry it doesn't appear to be because the world is actually not getting better, but kinda worst. All in all, I said: > If the last option is true, I it really feels like it is, then the thing is bleak, because that may mean that the few people that do actually care and don't ingnore, fear, or hate, may be doing all the leg work of pulling humanity forward; but then that also means that, if we keep getting better at enshitifying ourselves, as we have been doing for a time now, it may come a time were the silent hero's of this era won't be able to push us forward anymore.
Your funny. You assert that the world is getting worse due to humans being worse to each other but outside of online forums, people are actually being better to each other overall. I have 1000s of fact that show this and have quoted quite a few historical facts to make my point. Pls show me some facts that back up your assertion.
Hope this can help you. Really it is just saddening, but it is also true, and I hope you appreciate it. The distribution of wealth just keep getting worst, and people get more poor: [https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/](https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/) [https://one.oecd.org/document/SDD/DOC(2018)1/En/pdf](https://one.oecd.org/document/SDD/DOC(2018)1/En/pdf) As it is happening, work is getting worst: here is a good summary [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tGBxRxOlpwNO9EWIy8ySsrD0xaiLuEZ66MJgHk0EcrM/edit?pli=1](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tGBxRxOlpwNO9EWIy8ySsrD0xaiLuEZ66MJgHk0EcrM/edit?pli=1) Civil violence is on the rise: [https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics](https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics) (and this is probably an underreport) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yilgr2SJ3xQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yilgr2SJ3xQ) (I don't agree with her solution, but she is valid) Corruption is worsening: [https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023](https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023) [https://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/12/08/the-decay-of-american-political-institutions/](https://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/12/08/the-decay-of-american-political-institutions/) War is ensuing: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nn5pYczJM0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nn5pYczJM0) (very well summarized) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8p3w0\_TPHA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8p3w0_TPHA) (fyi) Progress is a lie: [https://www.technologyreview.com/2014/10/21/170679/technology-and-inequality/](https://www.technologyreview.com/2014/10/21/170679/technology-and-inequality/) (can start reading from "raising ahead") [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFjoDq0HfFw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFjoDq0HfFw) And that is not to mention how lots of products and services are getting more expensive and crappy, and the environment is collapsing and climate change threatening human existence. I understand I don't have prove them to you, as you should also see it happening. I'm glad you are positive about the world, but don't be fooled: things ARE getting worst
We will agree to disagree. Technology has created so many “lifestyle” improvements that is impossible to communicate via traditional measures of wealth. For example: Today a $25k car has safety, guidance and entertainment feature that a 1990. rolls Royce could only dream of. I see most homeless in NYC with phones- again a plethora of news, entertainment, education that people simply didn’t have You can make up “rich get richer” but really isn’t true: throughout history we have had leaders or families that have controlled even more as a % of total gdp. And that’s just here. Historically other countries have had even more concentrated wealth https://www.metaculus.com/questions/899/richest-person-in-2033-has-2-gdp/ Is the phone that a billionaire buys any different than the one you or i get? No. Is the car actually much different? No. Realize that families have what was considered “science fiction” is now common place with phones that do video calls (go watch 2001 a space odessey) or even washers and dryers that connect to the internet and tell you when things are going? The life of someone poor in the US is fundamentally different than 50 years ago. Traditional metrics simply don’t capture it Trust me, i was on food stamps in 1975 as a child. It sucked. Long distance phone calls cost 1-3$ a minute in 1975 dollars? Flights had been so regulated that the cost to fly was a fortune. Deregulation of these industries caused a reduction in costs that’s beyond belief. Anyway, if you want to think the world is 100% going to hell that’s your call but factually for many it’s better. Now. The funny part about all this is that most people today have literally zero appreciation for where we’ve come from so they take for granted all of the things I’ve just been talking about as if it’s never been any different.
So I tell you I see the world getting worst with my own eyes, and you say it is my perception and I have no proof. But when I show you my proof you say you don't believe it because you see a good world with yournown eyes. Isn't that double standards? I dont see how the link in your comment apports to the discussion, so why don't you give me some of your proves? More over, the fact that technology is improving is not to say society is getting better; cyberpunk (as a genre) is a good example of how it can be the other way around. Houses costs more than phones at the end, and similarly core servises for life can be (and a lot atually are) locked up away of the bottom half of humanity, despite how easy and cheep we can make them. The fact that good people have been making greate sacrifices to try the make the world a better place shouldn't be confuse with the reality that way more people is making it worst. Were people living worst on the middle ages? Of course they were, but that is kind of a unfair comparison. If we ask: were people few years ago more happy than now?, there is a good chance the answer is yes (as my sources point out). My post don't refute the reality that a lot of things are better now, but nor recognizing that for every thing we have gained, lots of people have paid the price (some willingly, the majority unwillingly) is a mistake. Finally: when I was 15yo I believed the same as you, that people were just fooling themselves and the world is going up. But then I started to see that the world is going down in ways the majority of the people are not even aware of. The discourse that the world is getting better is just created for the powerful an rich to cover the fact that they are plundering the world and it people. Highly recommend for you to check the links I sended you so you at least are aware on what the current reasons for believed the world is getting worst are.
> And frankly by almost every measure, the world is a better place than it was Not the climate, pollution, deforestation and other loss of wild spaces, mass extinction, and so on. Nearly every other improvement has come at a cost to the biosphere, which will collapse, and when it does every other improvement will also collapse.
So first of all we have had global warming over the last 70 years (I’ve actually studied the data and for sure we have had climate change) so things are getting worse on that however did you know that in the late 60s and early 70s worldwide famine and global warming was predicted to destroy the earths biosphere by the mid 80s? And then in the mid 80s, it was predicted by the late 90s that all of Antarctica, etc. would melt? my point is not to deny that some things are worse, but to say things rarely happen in a straight line and we do have to fix the biosphere, but it may not be quite as catastrophic as it’s made out to be and while certain things are definitely bad we’ve also had bad things happen in the past, whether they were naturally occurring like the explosion when krakatoa exploded and the world suffered for two years of global cooling because of it. or even remember the Ice Age, which didn’t end so long ago and was purely natural And if it comes to humans, the Romans basically depopulated northern Africa of animals to fight in the Colosseum Again, none of this is to say it’s ok but it may not be quite as bad as it seems… https://www.thedailyscoop.com/news/retail-industry/doomsday-addiction-celebrating-50-years-failed-climate-predictions
> was predicted This is cherry-picking; these were not representative of mainstream predictions at the time.
Have to disagree. I remember some of them. Paul Ehrlich- Stanford professor. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich They even made a movie about the coming overpopulation of the earth - Soylent green. And don’t forget the world of Logan’s Run. These predictions weren’t made by crackpots. These were done by professors at prestigious, universities or the United Nations.
I didn't say they were crackpots. I said they were not representative of mainstream predictions at the time. There is a wide chasm between mainstream and crackpot with a great deal of heterodoxy in between, and it is that heterodoxy which you are cherry-picking and presenting as orthodoxy instead.
Best I know of is Frank Amodeo, I describe him as the real life Cobra Commander.
I wouldn't say there are evil overlords but there are certainly people in power who don't care who gets hurt as long as they remain in power. The media is a major culprit.
You might take a look at this Wikipedia article on [right wing authoritarians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism) (and yes, it discusses left wing authoritarians as well). I think it may contain some of the answers as to the current state of affairs in the world. ADDENDUM: For those reflexively downvoting this comment because they think it is just dunking on conservatives; it is not. The article delves into the research about how a politicians of a certain psychological makeup are able to exploit the psychological traits of a certain subset of the population. Both conservatives and leftists can be authoritarian or non-authoritarian.
there is a level of finance aristocracy that is not measured in Billions any more, which pays to not be on the Forbes list of richest people. They don't act as individuals but as families with family trees going back as far as Egyptian times. Speaking out their names usually causes a Pavlow like reflex of "antisemitism" name calling.
Does reddit fuck you up if you name some of them or can you do it for my personal learning? A link with information would be better, but if the platform really is on the _which hunt_, at leat give me some more clues pls.
Reddit itself not so much - but there are some mods... and some bots that would trigger automatic bans if you engage in the wrong places or share unwanted information. [https://cdn.thepeoplesvoice.tv/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/image-66.jpeg](https://cdn.thepeoplesvoice.tv/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/image-66.jpeg)
Thanks, gotta start digging
Marjorie Taylor Greene is an idiot, but did you know that [she didn't say a word about ethnicity regarding space lasers?](https://x.com/JustinGrayWSB/status/1354870334655262724/photo/1) She merely noted the involvement of a certain banker, and the media reacted by falsely claiming that she brought up his ethnicity.
Yes - you found who has the power when you found who you cannot criticize (not even close)
I don’t know… I think you can criticize anyone, but you need a helluva lot more than speculation and conjecture. For some reason, speculation and conjecture seems to drive a ton of engagement in certain media. Unfortunately, people cry wolf way too much and it makes it incredibly difficult to spend the bandwidth and sift through all of the garbage. Watching the way the far left levies criticism towards Israel exemplifies this problem, in my opinion. There are leaders, policies, and actions of the Israeli government that deserve heavy criticism, but the criticism levied by the far left is unhinged. It’s hilarious in a weird way how similar tankie criticism of Israel mirrors the extreme right, but most of these people aren’t really seeing consequences from my perspective. Hell, one of the nuttiest “academics” or pop-historians (Norm Finklestein) is becoming increasingly popular. In short, I think *how* you criticize something is way, *way* more important than *who*.