By strategically; I mean over a timescale of many years.
For this to be possible, the manipulation must be done by persons that have access to very large amounts of money.
Money and other resources - including the ability to manipulate laws to permit - whatever they want to do, to reshape national/ multi-national policies, and to prevent competition.
For instance, the development of the best search engine/s was colossally funded and subsidized, for many years, by invisible (presumably military and intelligence) sources... Many years in which the technology cost a great deal of money, and made - no money at all.
This is simply not possible without very long-term backing from very wealthy patrons.
Then the unique status and power of this search engine was protected by laws and (presumably) other means - so that no superior competitor could emerge or was allowed.
Regulations were shaped to allow exemption from all kinds of restrictions that applied to written material; and immunity to laws that had regulated publishers.
Income without visible sources. Power without responsibility.
And there is a closely analogous situation with respect to social media platforms; and with post-November 2022 "AI" systems.
There was again colossal financial backing and investment for many years, from unknown sources, without visible or remotely commensurate sources of income adequate income. This transcends any "market". The consumers are not customers.
With AI; laws have been changed (or tacitly side-lined) to allow industrial scale plagiarism with immunity from prosecution. The entire electricity generation system of the USA, and energy policy generally, has been re-shaped to accommodate AI.
And all this must have been known and guaranteed up-front, in advance of implementation.
So - someone, somewhere, with vast money resources that are not derived from customers; and having the power to make and break laws; is working across a timescale of more than a decade to provide these "tools" such as search engines, social media platforms and now AI.
We don't know who these people are, we don't explicitly know what is their real motivation.
But the motivation does not seem to be money; at least not primarily; because these technologies take unimaginably vast amounts of money to develop across long periods before there is any possibility of beginning to recoup expenses (and by then, there will be another, similarly vast project afoot).
At the very least, such giga-investors must be sure - i.e. totally confident - that they can reshape the laws, national strategies, and media coverage so as to ensure the success of whatever technologies may (or may not) eventually emerge.
And this means that the investors in search engines/ social media/ AI; essentially Rule The World, already.
My inference is that they indeed already rule the world, substantially - insofar as it can be ruled; and these technologies are (or were) therefore strategically intended to monitor and control the world...
But maybe now the investors are being hoodwinked, and there is a higher level of strategy than this - and that strategy is to destroy the world.
**
H/T to a comment by NLR for triggering this post.
9 comments:
One implication is that the only way to prevent one's artistic work from being stolen, plagiarized, and bastardized is to hide it from the Internet ie. to forgo any hope of public recognition or narcissistic supply. Well, I suppose you could hang the artwork on the walls of your home and stop anyone from taking pictures of it...
@Epi - Well, the chances of any honest creative work attaining public recognition in the West here and now is - zero.
Even if something began as honest and creative, the distortions of public recognition 2025 will ensure that what comes-out of the other end of fame and fortune, will be neither.
I guess it isn't the same thing as fame and fortune, but I follow a lot of small-time amateur and semi-professional artists on Twitter that post guns, spaceships, robots, landscapes, that kind of thing. I like surfing ArtStation and DeviantArt to some extent, too.
I guess most of it isn't much, compared to the towering achievements of old times - most of it could be considered as a quiet childlike search for forms of sacred geometry, like playing with Legos - but it's certainly better than nothing, and I certainly wish I could contribute something myself.
Ordo ab chao, Brother C. Isn't there an old synth-laden pop song "Everybody Wants To Ruin the World"? You gotta destroy the world in order to save it, after all.
In all seriousness, you have perfectly adumbrated the world in 2025 for my money. Speaking of money -- it is no object to these forces, anyway. So no true wealth required.
I congratulate you on an excellent and crystal-clear posting.
@P - Rule the world, not ruin - if you mean the song by Tears for fears.
"no true wealth required" Well, yes, it is true wealth; it is the labour of many men for many years, and the consumption of a lot of resources (their extraction, processing etc).
People in the early 20th century thought that it was "obvious" that we would have a world government. That was just the way the natural process of development must go. We were moving from smaller social groupings to larger ones. We needed to ensure that this inevitable change was good of course, but other than that, there was no other option, so people just need to get with the program.
Huh, that sounds familiar.
Of course, people don't believe in a world government anymore. And even those who say they do, don't really believe in it in the same way, it's just attempted manipulation.
The idea of inevitably advancing technology and a techo-utopian future has lasted longer than the idea of world government. But it's also mistaken. Both left and right have reasons why it didn't happen. It was just the dumb, superstitious populists or the dumb woke leftists who brought us off the track.
Or maybe, there never was an inevitable track. Maybe, people just extrapolated based on what they saw in the early 20th century but they didn't know everything.
People will explain things away, just like people either explain away the fact that nothing now looks like how people thought it would at the turn of the millennium. The future never comes, so if the future of the past isn't like it was imagined, you can just ignore that and talk about the future of the future. But if the theory really is wrong wrong, then it won't happen.
Living for the future or living for technology isn't actually a viable philosophy of life. No one really knows what the future will hold. Any projected techno-utopia may never actually materialize for any number of reasons, not least of which is that it never could have worked in the first place. In practice this techno-utopianism leads to people going along with whatever bad state of affairs is actually happening because we need to get past this to get to the projected utopia. But at the most basic basic level, the philosophy fails because it doesn't tell people how to live now, it doesn't actually provide moral or spiritual guidance.
@NLR - Thoughtful comment, thanks.
Evil makes most of its way by envy. Under our system, it has compounded. Of course their primary motivation isn't money, it's the pervasive idea of rising above others, and if this requires putting the World on the line, so be it! Without God, pride will make a man believe he is the most important thing in the Universe, he may think of himself as the saviour, telling everyone he's on a mission. This is the origin of the strategy. But obviously, this has been curated into something really inspiring down in Silicon Valley: what's driving the development of these revolutionary technologies from the 90s until now is a genuine belief that We can make This World a better place (tell this to a Godless capable kid and you'll see his eyes glow). They refuse to see the conflict of interest, out of envy, out of pride... E.g. you have an idea that may help lots of people in their daily lives, you create the product, try to raise money from investors to build on it, launch it, change it, until people begin to use it; ok, now those same investors who have a stake in your company will push you to squeeze money out of people's hands (when your own faults aren't enough to do it by default), so they can get richer, feel more important, change the World a bit more; meaning: so they can rise above, in their own eyes. And this is done with the same effective saving-the-world masquerade, they will even advise you to be Good...
Now how do you get money out of people's hands? Well, if you get to the bottom of it, that's easy! There's even a motto at a popular startup accelerator: "Make something people want." Right, what do most people want in our modern society?
As you often say, @BC, to ask is to answer.
I think that's the strategy. And it wasn't created by anyone in particular, it's the work of the Devil.
@VF - Your example is a good one.
Post a Comment