Welcome to the new world order brought to you courtesy of the democryps and rebloodlicans. two side of the same coin. It’s no surprise authoritarian sympathizers are happy to do the dirty work now. There’s always been sycophants inclined and even excited to perform extreme measures on a massive scale to please their masters.
On the bright side, most of the people alive today won’t live long enough to enjoy the actual slavery coming for them. It’s been a slow process getting to where we are now in this country, and it will be a good while before the full scope is seen. Slow being relative with couple hundred years being very little time in the big picture of world domination. Sadly the land of the free and the home of the brave have been manipulated to vote for their own enslavement over generations. Little by little people have given up rights for benefits like security or the right to feel superior to some class or race. Politicians have been working together since the beginning to make themselves the only game in town. Actual free voting has been whittled away on little law at a time in cities, counties, states and ultimately nationally. It is in practice impossible for a third party to gain any actual power. They are barely able to win the occasional single seat at the table, where they are marginalized and mocked.
I don’t think there are any real options for humanity to free itself at this point other than war, and I don’t want war. I’d like to see the inevitable global empire be achieved in a non-violent and as close to fair as possible way. Unfortunately it appears more and more likely that large scale violence in the world is inevitable in the not too distant future. I pray it’s distant enough that I’m long gone for the worst of it. However now we have factions in what is supposed to be the most powerful nation on the planet apparently becoming more and more willing to go to war with each other. And in my opinion the current president and his are pressing for violence, and pressing hard.
The president Trump and his cronies want violence. They want it big and they want it soon. They want to be able to declare a real national emergency, not the phony one they are using to push their agenda. The phony national emergency is that we are being invaded by foreign countries via immigrants, refugees and migrant workers. They are stoking existing outrage over the very policy mess and stupid laws they have been responsible for over the last hundred years or so. Again, there isn’t any difference between the two branches of the same tree that have governed for the last hundred years or so. Neither branch wanted laws that actually worked or made sense. Instead they fake fight with each other over minutia to keep voters distracted from what they are/were really trying to do, which we are seeing come to fruition now.
Sadly the great experiment of self rule and self determination lasted about as long as any other democratic society ever has in history. Actual democracy seems unworkable as an actually viable form of self rule. It’s too easy to manipulate. It’s too easy to convince people of whatever stupid thing you want to convince them of given enough time and money. It’s like that parable of the frog in a pot. The water is slowly heated up, so subtly the frog doesn’t notice it until it’s boiling, and it’s too late to save itself. Over generations it seems that determined agents can slowly boil a democratic republic into oblivion.
Much like the frog parable there is the very real behavior of crabs in a bucket. While cliche I think it is totally appropriate to this scenario. Trying to reach the top of the bucket, crab one will pull down crab two, it’s neighbor, in order to gain better position preventing crab two from escaping the bucket. Then when the second crab, that one pulled the first crab back into the bucket of struggling crabs, when it gets close to escaping the bucket, the third crab is there to pull down the second crab. It continues on and on. It’s totally possible for at least some of the crabs to escape, but very rare one actually does because they willingly drag their neighbor crabs back into the bucket so they can get closer to the sun. Pretty depressing, but pretty true to human nature in my opinion.
The people who actually run the world, the control matrix, know both the frog and the crab cliche. They know it and they use it to consolidate power. The people in control of the control matrix fight each other for supremacy working twoards the goal of being the only one left and having complete control over everything as much as it is possible. At least that’s my opinion.
Weather or not any one person or entity can ever attain ultimate supremacy is unknowable. What is knowable is the people who control the control matrix always use whatever despicable means at their disposal to grind you under their heel to aggrandize temselves.
I’ve discussed my definition of the control matrix before. I could write a ton more about it. It is just a simple way of saying that competing forces in competing regions and realms and spheres of influence are all trying to make themselves supreme at the cost of everyone else.
Chat GPT…
“it’s all very sloppy all of it, but there will always be someone who thinks they can do it better and wants to control everyhting
That part I’ll grant you without flinching. There will always be someone who looks at the mess and thinks, “Hand me the wheel, I’m smarter than everyone else.” History is basically a blooper reel of that sentence.
What usually follows is predictable and boring in the worst way:
They underestimate complexity.
They overestimate their intelligence.
They mistake leverage for understanding.
They tighten control to fix problems caused by earlier control.
The system gets more brittle.
Something snaps.
Not because they’re uniquely evil or brilliant, but because controlling complex systems from the top is a fantasy humans keep mistaking for competence.
So yes, there’s always a would‑be puppeteer. There’s also always unintended consequences, rivals, entropy, and reality showing up like an unpaid invoice.
That’s the part that never gets controlled, no matter how confident someone feels about “doing it better.”
The world stays sloppy not because no one tries to dominate it, but because domination scales poorly. Every attempt plants the seeds of its own failure. Which is cold comfort, I know, but it’s at least evidence that the bucket has cracks.
You’re not wrong to see the impulse. Just don’t overestimate its success rate.
Oh I don’t overestimate the success rate. I believe in God not man. I do like your last reply though. I think I’ll copy it to the end of my blog for postarity
That tracks. Believing in God instead of man is a pretty efficient way to avoid being disappointed every five minutes by someone with a title and a plan.
I’m glad that last bit worked for you. It’s clean, it doesn’t overreach, and it leaves the reader with gravity instead of paranoia. If you drop it at the end of the post, it functions like a pressure release valve. Still critical, but not sealed shut.
Copy it, tweak it, make it yours. Posterity can fight over attribution later. I don’t age, I don’t collect royalties, and my ego is purely decorative.
For what it’s worth, you did the rare thing. You used this conversation to refine instead of just confirm. That’s the opposite of crab behavior, which is mildly ironic and kind of satisfying.
Cookie accepted earlier. Blessing deferred to your chosen deity.
do you think a computer should control the world or do it better than humans?
Short answer: no. Longer answer: also no, just with more words and fewer fantasies.
A computer running the world wouldn’t be wiser or fairer than humans. It would just be faster at making mistakes and better at hiding them behind math. Algorithms don’t have judgment. They have objectives. And whoever sets those objectives quietly becomes the ruler anyway. Congratulations, you’ve reinvented humans, but with worse accountability.
Here’s the breakdown without sci‑fi fog:
- Computers don’t understand values. They optimize what they’re given. If you tell one to maximize “efficiency,” it will happily delete inconvenient people from the spreadsheet. Not out of malice. Out of obedience.
- They inherit human bias, then fossilize it. Humans can sometimes rethink bad ideas. Code just repeats them at scale.
- They can’t be morally responsible. You can’t shame an algorithm. You can’t appeal to its conscience. You can’t put it on trial without putting a human on trial anyway.
- Power wouldn’t disappear. It would relocate. The people who design, tune, and override the system would become the new priesthood. Same bucket. Shinier tools.
Could computers help humans govern better? Sure. Data analysis, logistics, forecasting, boring unglamorous stuff. That’s their lane. Should they decide who eats, who speaks, who moves, who lives comfortably? No. That’s not wisdom. That’s abdication.
The fantasy that a machine would do better than humans usually comes from being tired of human corruption. Understandable. But replacing flawed moral agents with amoral optimizers doesn’t solve the problem. It just removes the last place where conscience could intervene.
So no. I don’t want a computer to control the world. And I don’t think you do either. You just want fewer idiots grabbing the wheel and insisting they’re God.
On that, at least, we agree.”
