By now we’ve all seen the ‘files’, if you’re like me you’ve used various AI to cross-reference them with other things like financial crashes, who else might be a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th degree connections, where do they work, etc etc etc and at the end of it you see the web of parasitic elites running our society.
How do we just go back to ‘normal’??
This is normal, the billionaire class has always ruled over hordes of proles.
In the beginning, we just knew about our own territory, a few hundred years ago, we wouldn’t know what’s going on beyond a few days travel from our home. Today, we can read news from across the globe.
A few centuries ago, we could at least daydream that things are better somewhere. Ignorance is bliss
The problem is, as people gain power, it rots their mind and ruins their perceptions, so we have this recurring theme running throughout our history.
That’s why it’s so important to have short terms and total transparency.
But, once they gain power, politicians always fight tooth and nail to keep and expand on that power, and since they make the rules, here we are. Again
II would put it the other way around: as long as representative systems exist, it will always be more likely that egoists and narcissists will establish themselves in leadership positions, even if they only make up a small part of the population. Today, this is encouraged by the fact that we reward these character traits, which are actually harmful to the community, with fame, money and prestige.
Personally, I think the internet is both a blessing and a curse: while it is currently being used to sow discord and spread lies, it will also enable us to do without representatives and the corruption that goes with them in the foreseeable future. I believe that internet- and open-source-based direct democracy is the model of government of the future.
Solution anonymous leaders? Or leaders as groups/institutions rather than individuals.
My problem with anonymous leaders is that we’d completely lose track of who’s to be made responsible. It would basically create a shortcut for elites to rule without having to hide their corruption/influence.
A group/institution would probably also face the same problem as we have today with single persons: Big money would simply buy influence in these new organizations instead of bribing single individuals.
A direct democracy would mean you have to bribe a big part of the population to cover your ideas… the worse your idea is and the more support you need to buy for it the more translates from bribery to paying a majority to accept your idea. At some point the amount of bribes extends the gains to be made by your manipulation and it becomes uneconomical… we’d basically use capitalism against bribery.
What to do then?
This isn’t actually observable, though. Having managerial positions, administration, etc doesn’t cause cognitive deficiency nor a “turning evil” in a religious, supernatural sense. What actually happens is classes act in their class interest. The proletariat as manager isn’t seeking to establish itself as an entrenched, permanent ruling class, but instead to abolish itself as a class. Capitalists, monarchs, etc. all seek to maintain their individual privledges.
What is natural for human behavior is detetmined by the conditions of our social existence, ie how we produce and distribute. This means the idea of a static, fixed, unchanging “human nature” that cannot handle organizing at scale is false. The reason these myths persist is because they discourage action against unjustifiable systems today.