474
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2026
474 points (99.0% liked)
politics
31202 readers
1819 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This is a conspiracy theory, but is it really so far-fetched to assume that the most powerful 1% of the populations are joining forces worldwide to establish something like a global feudal regime?
It’s entirely feasible, since we’re talking about just a few thousand people here.
In any case, these people have one thing in common: they view democracy as a problem. This applies to Trump just as much as it does to Putin and Jinping. The same goes for their henchmen, such as Merz in Germany, for example.
It’s not that unthinkable when you consider the fundamental idea behind fascism, as shaped by Mussolini in his day: a brotherhood of the elites striving for absolute rule.
It seems to me that this is now the agenda, especially since in the U.S., with the pseudo-intellectual concept of "Dark Enlightenment," there doesn’t even seem to be any attempt to hide it.
I'm not usually a fan of such ideas, but it does seem very, very suspicious to me, given that the leaders of the world's most powerful countries are apparently doing everything in their power to undo the civilizational progress of the last hundred years—and are clearly doing so in a fairly well-coordinated manner.
Have you ever been close to the top of of a large organization? While conventional wisdom is that the higher you go, the more informed, skilled, coordinated, wise, and even Machiavellian it is. My experience is that its usually the opposite. Sure, there are pockets of those things in individual people, but the people at the top are usually really good at a few things only. If they're truly wise, they surround themselves with other people that cover their own gaps in knowledge, skill, temperament, etc. However the larger and more complicated the organization, the more outer rings of people are required with those other pockets of skills.
In short, complex organizations (this includes governments) are the opposite of " fairly well-coordinated manner". There are just too many moving parts and the environment changes so quickly that the rules that worked a second ago changed. Most successful organizations I've seen make "okay" decisions most of the time "good" decisions every now and then, and the best orgs do everything they can to limit their internal fuck ups.
The best vaccine against conspiracy theories about high groups of coordinated humans in leadership working against you is actually seeing humans in leadership trying to coordinate.
I’d be an idiot to say here what I do for a living, but yes, I regularly deal with CEOs -and it’s precisely this experience that makes it all the more likely to me that a conspiracy like the one mentioned above is underway. While I’m nowhere near that level, I’m still quite familiar with the politics in companies with 500 or more employees. For me, this is all the more reason to entertain such thoughts, because I know of hardly any company where performance or competence is even remotely appreciated. The people I know as “the decision-makers” should actually be the very last ones to make decisions—they’re self-absorbed, unscrupulous people.
I'm confused by this statement. If you're familiar with the regular pockets of incompetence that is present in any leadership organization, what leads you to believe they would be successfully executing a broad coordinated conspiracy like this? I'm not suggesting its a lack of greed or narcissism at the top for them to try, but to actually succeed seems pretty unlikely to me.
Because they have the money to do so. Those who have it simply pay good people. You should know this if you’ve ever dealt with large companies. It doesn’t take good management—just the money to pay the people who do the work. You should also know that giant online corporations like Meta have an incredibly small number of employees compared to industrial companies, and labor is the biggest cost factor in any business.
What do you actually do for a living? You claim to have insights. Where did you get them?
The problem isn't the resources to execute, its forming a coherent strategy, and actually following through with it while balancing their own interests against their co-conspirators that are also all trying to do the same thing. Many times the failure is simply not forming the right initial question. If that step is messed up, then the best implemented plans are solving the wrong problem or addressing the right problem only incidentally at best.
What is leading you to that conclusion? Unless you're intentionally omitting many offshore resources, the biggest tech giants rival large industrial companies. Meta has more employees than Exxon Mobile. Alphabet has more than 4x the number of employees as Bechtel. Microsoft has 100,000 more employees than Koch Inc.
Are there tech firms with a smaller headcount than other industrial firms? Sure. Even then, I'm not seeing where you're going with the headcount-to-successful-conspiracy metric.
I agree labor is the biggest cost of nearly all businesses. What does that have to do with the ability for a core group of leadership in multiple competitive organizations successfully coordinating a worldwide conspiracy?
I agree with your prior statement for myself too : "I’d be an idiot to say here what I do for a living"
If you want to dismiss my observations because I'm not presenting my bona fides, you're welcome to.
I don't understand what you're getting at. Of course tech companies have a lot of employees if you count all the "mechanical turks". That's simply misleading.
None of that has much to do with what my original comment was about.
You’re saying that it’s impossible for powerful, completely degenerate people to be capable of playing their power games.
My take on this is that a look at the history books proves you wrong. LinkedIn-style fairy tales about leadership and all that bogus doesn't change much about that.
The whole headcount thing was your point, not mine. I could never tell where you were going with it.
No, I never said its impossible. I said the closer you get to seeing those in power, the less likely it appears to happen for a number of reasons, but mostly because they are simply not as smart or capable as we generally give them credit for. Wealth and power does not equal intelligence.
Are you seriously dismissively calling tech workers from outside the West "mechanical turks" like they're throwaway people? I'll say this as nicely as possible: Fuck that racist bullshit!
These are people like you and me. No different. They contribute high tech and high quality work to multi million and billion dollar programs. They may make a fraction of the wage we do here in the West, but that isn't because they are any less smart, skilled, ambitious, or honest. That is only the product of history and geopolitics. I've personally gone to India and seen first hand the work they do, and worked alongside them. They work as hard as we do for a better life for themselves and their families. Fuck you for thinking less of them.
This post of mine can probably get me banned, but if it goes that way I'll take that if the alternative is accepting open racism.
Mechanical Turk
I'm familiar with the history of it. It was a person in the box. Mechanical Turk is also a 21st century reference to people that do brainless work born from the AWS service. In either reading I'm only seeing you're saying they don't count as workers, or they're workers that don't count because their work is trivial.
I see from your post history that English may not be your first language. I'm really hoping you're just miscommunication. Please explain the non-racist/non-dismissing meaning I'm hoping you're trying to get across.
What I meant by that was that many tech companies hire people, who frequently perform these tasks on a project basis for only short periods of time, and pay them a pittance for their work. Their numbers are likely to fluctuate greatly.
I was by no means trying to emphasise the fact that these people mostly live in countries where wages are particularly low and where there are virtually no labor protections; I was simply pointing out that they are usually hired on a short-term basis.
This exploitative practice, as well as other "gig-work" arrangements, is unfortunately quite widespread, especially in the tech industry, and serves to increase corporate profitability. Many tech companies use this approach to reduce the number of permanent employees—a practice that, of course, isn’t unique to the tech industry—but using these practices there are many tech companies that generate astronomical revenues with a comparatively small workforce.
The global feudal regime is called the WEF. It is ran by the West.