(untitled)

I think it can generally be agreed upon that 4chan's /g/ is absolute garbage. Reading some of the threads there, any time anything remotely technical in nature or relating to privacy/security/anonymity, this fuarrrking excruciating torrent of a certain type of user floods it with some of the worst replies I have ever seen. Nothing but purely speculative conspiracy theories, no understanding of hanlon's razor or capacity to accurately weigh cost, incentive, risk, ability, time, the constraints of physics, or the existence of goodwill, or the existence of coincidences into their mental model of the world. These peoples' internal plausibility metrics are fuarrrkING BROKEN AS SHIT, their brains are pattern-matching far too excessively, what the fuarrrk! Oh and don't get me started on the politics. Not even important politics like right to speech/assembly/privacy/freedom of computation/association/arms, but cosmetic social soykaf like cosmetic sex change surgery. Nothing but "tr*nnies" this or "n*ggers" that, what the fuarrrk does that have to do with anything that matters you mentally retarded freak? I don't give a fuarrrk???? And they have absolutely no attention span. And they have no intense curiosity nor intense passion nor intense optimism. What a god-awful site with god-awful moderation, even forcing users to post using residential or other proxy instead of letting them connect with anything (no, blocking IPs will NOT stop spammers who have a handful of $ to spare). Here is an example: Tor. We all know what Tor advertises- not perfect anonymity, but a secure, low latency, low bandwidth overhead, performant, open source onion-routing software. You get TLS between client and guard, TLS between every relay, and onion-encrypted 512-byte cells passed through those links. It protects against traffic analysis, circumvents censorship, and offers a degree of 'relationship anonymity', to use anonymity-researcher-speak. It increases the costs of metadata surveillance from $0 to 'you have to run a multi-billion dollar global surveillance operation tapping underwater cables and make deals with tier1/tier2 ISPs and IXPs and many countries worldwide to purchase their IP packet headers and netflow data' in order to more reliably have a chance of measuring both entry and exit stream of an arbitrary circuit. Most adversaries have very little chance of deanonymizing a competent user, especially one who cherrypicks relays, uses Vanguards for long-lived connections, encrypts everything and prevents leakage, but every reasonable hacker understands and accepts the constraints, and knows that there are only 3 ways to beat the power of a global adversary (public wifi or dummy traffic. or latency(pffft) ). However here are what replies would look like on a thread about Tor or topics similar to that (really anything that might threaten to make their gears turn): > Comment complaining X tool does not 100% guarantee security against every possible adversary in every possible circumstance > Comment implying that no one with goodwill towards others exists, everything good is a honeypot, everything that exists is masterminded by some elite group > Comment claiming that if someone creates a good website that isn't 4chan, it will be immediately flooded with CP by government agents. Pretends that techniques like strategically activating rate limits and captchas don't exist. Pretends that this has literally ever happened. > Lazy troll comment contributing to some product brand flamewar > Comment implying that we should treat the threat of intentional hardware vulnerabilities any differently than we treat unintentional hardware vulnerabilities > XYZ piece of FOSS software is mossad spyware (???) > Hate comment for any display of optimism > Nakadashi [kek] > Bizarre and almost out of the blue comment about some American politician > B00 mer-tier political sentiment comment I am so tired of hearing any word that comes out of these peoples' mouths. And it isn't as if there aren't any good anons over there- but they seem drowned out by the utter flood of tech illiterate schizophrenics, tech illiterate /pol/ or /v/ posters addicted to ragebait, and underage u. . . you know what, just generally cynical/nihilistic people who don't give a fuarrrk about technology. So so I don't want to waste the joules it takes for me to even type in the 4chan domain into a browser. Where do anons who care about tech tend to go? I know of here, but is everyone really just spread out on a bunch of random chans, IRC nets, matrix rooms, and the like? I feel like it is really regrettable that there is no large hub of technically inclined anons to post as anonymously as possible.

>>31775 I know exactly what you mean. It's not just /g/ though but pretty much all of the internet from what I know. I don't know exactly what is the issue, but something makes people post really low quality and barely thought out posts. >but is everyone really just spread out on a bunch of random chans, IRC nets, matrix rooms, and the like? I feel like it is really regrettable that there is no large hub of technically inclined anons to post as anonymously as possible. The only site I know that has high quality posts like that would be Ycombinator's hacker news. It's very, very cookie cutter though. You can expect the post to be well written, and I really found few gems there, but it's also mainstream for better or worse. It's essentially owned by people who bankrolled lot of big-tech and is big on strartup culture. You might also try making something on your own. Although the coding part is mostly easy. Whily you would probably need to code something unique to stand out, that still doesn't compare with the issue of finding people to join. Which nowdays is really difficult.

>>31775 I've largely stopped trying to escape the island on which I'm marooned. I have my website, some people with whom to discuss programming, and that's about as good as it gets. >>31776 Hacker News and every other website like it is like kicking dead whales down the beach. They're based around discussing that which happens elsewhere, unlike an imageboard, and this is a damning flaw. My website has reached the front page of Hacker News a few times, and not once did I receive even one worthwhile comment. The userbase is composed of sychophants and third-worlders.

>>31776 Oh, have a fresh screenshot from my collection of stupid soykaf the idiots on Hacker News write. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32106105 I really don't like them.

>>31776 > I don't know exactly what is the issue, but something makes people post really low quality and barely thought out posts. GenZ users are not capable of sophisticated thinking. That's literally all there is to it. Their brains have been fried by TikTok and other short-attention-span focused social media. They are not capable of any thought that requires thinking for more than 5 seconds. That's why they love conspiracy theories. It's because those give a simple explanation for everything. Thinking would hurt their brains, so they simply go for the same explanation they always do: It must be all because of "them". I know that this sounds like a soykafpost, but I genuinely believe this. I don't want to be a doomsayer and use slippery-slope arguments, but if this trend continues, then the average cognitive abilities of the younger generation will hit unthinkable lows in the following decades.

>>31780 >but if this trend continues, then the average cognitive abilities of the younger generation will hit unthinkable lows in the following decades. I think the moment brain implants will become viable will be the moment the level of thinking will go to literal rock bottom, since people could just stream funny videos directly into their visual cortex, at like a video/nanosecond, essentialy frying their brains.

>>31780 Obligatory not all gen z. I find it hard to enjoy mainstream social media. I never got into it, but I enjoy this site a lot for its discussions and helpful information. There are also plenty of older garbageposters just look at facebook and Twitter. I think what you are discussing is more of a normal person problem than a youngshit problem. The youngshit problem would be overly edgy nonfat-soykaf drinkers and contrarians.

>>31780 >conspiracy theories are simple >its tiktok are you trying to max out being wrong on purpose? Any conspiracy theory has more backstory than official narrative which makes it more complex not simpler and education has been dumbed down ahead of tiktok. The us head of education had some quote flying in news along "they want me to make all kids equal, i cant make the dumb kids smart so im gonna have to make the smart kids dumb by changing curriculum, they will be equal at the bottom"

>>31795 >are you trying to max out being wrong on purpose? I think he means, something like attributing every problem to a common enemy like the jews, or something like that, i could be wrong however. >The us head of education had some quote flying in news Theirs this quote floating around, about the president at the time of ww2, saying that basically the only reason they started the war was because they needed economical gain.

>>31781 >npc meme with outrage chip being switched out, but literal. I'm not looking forward to everybody's free will being MITM'd personally, but with how irresponsible people are with their own cognition and understanding of the world cyborg NPCs are pretty much inevitable. I expect the bloodiest of human history to be after this point.

>>31781 Entertainment doesn't even need to exist with brain implants. Implant can release reward doing work so now you don't want entertainment you will want to work as much as possible because you get most reward while working. Moment you can control reward center with an implant is moment present culture is dead.

>>31798 >Entertainment doesn't even need to exist with brain implants. Implant can release reward doing work so now you don't want entertainment you will want to work as much as possible because you get most reward while working. Thats true, but what i was thinking of is more of an AR implant, one that lets you merge reality with the internet so you won't have to use a phone or a computer, you will just have it dirrectly merged with whats your eye precives, like google AR glasses, but like 100x more advanced. >>31797 >I'm not looking forward to everybody's free will being MITM'd personally, but with how irresponsible people are with their own cognition and understanding of the world cyborg NPCs are pretty much inevitable. >I expect the bloodiest of human history to be after this point. Yea, that's why i'm not a fan of the whole cyber implants part of cyberpunk, the whole thing is just basically asking for your free will to be taken.

>>31797 >>31798 >>31799 >cyborg threat Already happened long ago when XOR, this-and-not-that logic was first applied to thinking about one's personal body. Ask anyone on the street where their body ends, they point to their toes or to their head. Incorrect nigger, not even in the same ballpark as a correct answer. This is how the banking system and weapons and other matter-deadening-to-allow-its-abuse-tech can exist in the first place. Many people/groups who still remember this got marred and obfuscated and given a bad name by hucksters during the New Age Spirituality psyop.

>>31795 OP here When people complain about conspiracy theories, they are not saying that it is impossible to conspire, but that there are hard upper bounds on parameters like # of agents, length of time of the conspiracy, average age of conspirators (how soon they will die), incentives and disincentives, degree of encapsulation, and the actual physical attack surface over which a conspiracy can be detected by external observers. Once you exceed a certain number of people who possess sufficient details to spoil the heart of a conspiracy, the likelihood of keeping it a secret decreases so quickly that they are exposed very quickly. Examples of impossible conspiracies: - Getting the entire scientific community to lie about any significant topic for any significant amount of time. - Faking the fact that humanity has caused the temperature increase of the planet over the last century - Every politician is controlled by a cabal of jews (in reality they just obey the lobbyist class, which is not centralized. in some cases particular actors do control much of a given industry in a region, however.) - Every actor who espouses goodwill towards other humans completely earnestly is actually a federal agent Examples of viable conspiracies: - Asking tier 1 IP transit providers and the IXPs between tier 2 providers to let your intelligence agency copy IP packet headers. Making deals with agencies of other countries to employ similar measures and engaging in mutual intelligence-sharing agreements with your best allies. - A monopoly/oligopoly colluding to artificially inflate the price of a good. - Powerful corporations bribing local politicians with unlimited, anonymous funds to favor their businesses. Completely legal in USA. - Assassinations, hacking, targeted espionage/sabotage/violence/surveillance. However as we have seen, even the world's richest actors often fail to keep targeted conspiracies secret, despite their need-to-know basis for as much knowledge as possible, all of their competence, everything. Dragnet internet surveillance? That was an open secret in any industry even remotely related to very large ISPs even in 2001! Estimated time of internet surveillance kept secret- 0 years. Bribery, anonymous bribery even, is legal and everyone knows it happens every day. Never been secret. Corporations screwing customers? Hardly secret. The only thing that has a reasonable chance of secrecy are targeted ops- I'm sure there are plenty of assassinations and other targeted actions that we never hear anything about. Because those hit the sweet spot- few people need to know everything about what is going on, the most willing participants can be chosen, not that many people need to be involved for any long amount of time, and there is an implied disincentive (if you know that your boss can carry out assassinations, are you gonna rat on him?). And sometimes even these operations get burned by bad OPSEC. >Any conspiracy theory has more backstory than official narrative which makes it more complex not simpler and education has been dumbed down ahead of tiktok. The us head of education had some quote flying in news along "they want me to make all kids equal, i cant make the dumb kids smart so im gonna have to make the smart kids dumb by changing curriculum, they will be equal at the bottom" And complexity is the absolute enemy of secrecy and security. The more complex your conspiracy becomes, the more of a joke it becomes. Like there is clearly something wrong with your brain to believe that the head of education is competent enough to implement some kind of grand strategy, multi-decade level conspiracy to degrade the education of a target group, with little to no incentive to do this. It is much more obvious to say that the entire education system is just severely flawed/outdated and headed by INCOMPETENT morons who, through the collective sum of their individual moronic actions, have their idiotic nature manifested upon the world.

>>31802 i like how you first said conspiratards are dumb cause they want simple so thats why they like em and now you want to say they are dumb cause conspiracies are too complex. Make up your mind. Also the entire education system doesn't set the curriculum 99% just follow orders. You fail to asses basic realities while trying to act smug about supposedly dumber people. And its not even a conspiracy ffs, for once he said it public and for two its just logical for him when his goal is merely getting paid. Its like claiming the rivers are conspiring because they all flow into the sea. People working in unison happens naturally when benefits align. They dont need any agreement.

>>31802 I appreciate the detail of your rationale, but it's frankly flawed and naïve. Every single parameter that you have brought up has an extremely high upper bound if not completely nullified. Complexity is extremely efficient at shrouding intent if stratified and spread among many hands. Incompetence in ranks is a huge benefit. However, maybe I am not the one to explain it as doing so in detail would easily dwarf this entire thread in length. Instead of breaking it down point by point with fleshed out logic, references, and examples, I'll just rant a thought exercise. :) Do an honest cognitive exercise and think about each point you made: make like the Fabian Society or Freemasons or British Royalty or Rhodes Scholars (or one of the other hundreds of long-term planning fraternities in the last few centuries) and figure out what you want to change about the world. How would you use networks of powerful associates, exorbitant wealth, public and/or private recognition, and top down control to make each of these things not a problem, just as your predecessors did? And those outside of this network, surely you can fool them right? Missing information, false information, contracts, authority, threats, and nullification of law can get you there. How about you make like Edward Bernays, HG Wells, Aldous Huxley, or even the Pope to figure out a plan to propagate a narrative, ideology in which helps or promotes your intentions? There is a lot of the people in the middle of the commoner and the king, like the advisor and expert, so make sure they just follow orders, or are limited in their scope of expertise or action, or are made insignificant in a vast hierarchy (School > School Board > Multiple Regional Advisories > Laws, Regulations, and National Boards > Think-tanks and top-down lobbying organizations > Secret Society fraternities, and many other auxiliary networks in each step also following a top-down structure). For nullifying direct action, a control in balance of power is essential. Even though in this hypothetical position, laws do not apply to you since money and power nullify them, controlling the physical and ideological supply networks can minimize the strength and ability of any adversary. Single individuals are easy to deal with, as goons are cheap and are willing to do anything including murder. Adversary organizations aren't too bad since you can send someone in to divert and monkeywrench in the best case, but otherwise any that do not invite you in you can slander and disrupt the resources and freedom of its members. Nation states are much like the above, where you can Sun Tzu their ass and convince their populations in a narrative more beneficial to you, disrupt supply networks, or if all else fails go to war. I was trying to avoid length, and while I was successful I see it's not enough. How about those oh-so-banal evils we deal with in the world today, like the panopticon spy networks in tech and government, or the price gouging of medicine, or the unjustified wars in the last century (lol if you think there is a justified one), or modern slavery, the poisoning of our food and environment with chemical byproducts in the face of better alternatives and practices being easily understood, the nonconsensual experimentation of populations from MK Ultra to algorithm-driven information control, international banking using loans to bankrupt sovereigns in order to capture resources, or any other number of "conspiracies" you refuse to define as such that you take for granted? How do those exists with your conditions? No ill will to you personally, but it's sickening how people denounce conspiracies in some nebulous definition that exists as some strawman to affirm one's own naivete. Breaking news: people can be selfish and deceptive, and can realize the consequences and take action to not get punished. Literally take what you think as viable and do it a million times, or get clever.

>>31802 >first 3 examples of "impossible" conspiracies You have absolutely zero educational foundation, LOL. LMAO even. >inb4 "low IQ post" Uh huh and the OP is what - cross-board soykaf-stirring while plastering CIA logo all over the board, are you fuarrrrking kidding me you one-eyed pirate? He posts a party van but he's not a spook! Aye, sounds legit! He stirs the soykaf but all his posts are so good! Aye, sounds legit! He's on /g/ forever but posts on this board! Aye, sounds legit! Aye, sounds legit! Aye, sounds legit! OP's not... a troll!

>>31804 Sorry, great post but I have one small important correction, the specific evil in the banking system is not loans but it is that the loans are with interest and without a periodic (e.g. Jubilee year) nullification, that makes them evil.

>>31805 I was aggressively forum slid and derezzed for linking a video of a production set rehearsing a famous ISIS beheading that was leaked from Colin Powell's laptop once (no blood, but the video was good enough to verify details being identical to the viral one claimed as real). This was on a board only slightly more popular than here, in a subforum that moved absolutely glacially in comparison to here, and not breaking forum rules or being inflammatory. That post brought on around a few dozen posts in the span of five minutes, followed by a quick ban and some strange random character emails in my inbox. That was like 10 years ago. That taught me that no community is immune to forum spooks... and this place obviously has them. >>31806 Great point. You get it.

>>31804 >Complexity is extremely efficient at shrouding intent if stratified and spread among many hands. Complexity is good at avoiding assignment of blame, but it is extremely bad at stopping leaks, resisting outside pressure, and getting things done. Filtering your decisions through clueless lackeys means that you have far less control over the final outcome. The real question about any conspiracy is, "who needs to be in on the joke for this to work". Not just who is participating in the heirarchy, who needs to have enough information that they could expose the whole thing? If your answer is more than a dozen or so people, then there is simply no way your conspiracy could work. There will be infighting. Someone might grow a conscience. Someone might get drunk and blab. Someone might feel they have more to gain by exposing you than by staying on your dole. The risk of exposure ramps up exponentially with the number of people in on the joke, and no amount of compartmentalization will fix that.

>>31808 The whole thing doesn't need to be perfect. We have a whole list of soykaf everyone knows about and it still worked. Like how many corps got caught hiding internal research that their soykaf is harmful up to will kill people? Never stopped people to still buy from them. Nestle could even ignore killing babies in their past. Everyone knows but how many care?

>>31808 You're completely disregarding the marketing of an idea; the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Also the components of an idea or goal are often broken up (very often by necessity) to the point where the overarching goal is impossible to discern; Bob went to the hardware store and bought a chainsaw and some fertilizer. You work at the store and ring him up. Bob murders a person. Did you figure out Bob murdered a person based off of his purchases?

>>31807 "If your enemy is killing themselves - do not interrupt." See my post: >>31805 Counterexample: >>31803 >>31804 And yours to a lesser extent f you didn't aggressively pad and chaff your estimates. Further pointless engagement: >>31809 >>31810 P.S.: I'm a fuarrrking sage

>>31809 >The whole thing doesn't need to be perfect Sure, you can usually do something quick and dirty and get away with it. MKULTRA operated for 20 years before it became public knowledge, and they managed to destroy most of the documents too. The thing is that many things conspiratards believe are way bigger than a research program on brainwashing, and most of them would also take decades to get any results. >>31810 >the road to hell is paved with good intentions I've always thought that phrase was bullshit. If you can't see why your "well-intentioned" idea is bad then you just don't have a strong moral compass. >Also the components of an idea or goal are often broken up (very often by necessity) to the point where the overarching goal is impossible to discern My point is that regardless of that, someone has to have the idea or goal in mind. Usually more than one person, sometimes many people. Otherwise you're describing a general trend, not a conspiracy. Not different from the way communists describe capitalism. The difference between a conspiratards and a smart person is that the conspiratard is intellectually lazy. The conspiratard is, regardless of what they might think, always operating on the surface level. They have incomplete information but using some kneejerk reflexes ("its da joos" or "tor was developed by the US navy") they become quite certain they know the full picture. They could her well be right, maybe Tor is a honeypot set by international Jewry, but even if they're right they don't know why they're right.

another point is that for a lot of things 'they' aren't actually keeping the 'conspiracy' secret; Bill Gates goes around talking about microchipping people, half of all politicians are pretty open to the idea of forcing everyone to take weird drugs, and the CIA admits to forcing drugs on us citizens. The 'Official Narrative' typically doesn't keep a consistent explanation, vacilating between ridiculous fact checks about how Bill Gates didn't actually exactly precisely say this or that to how microchipping people is actually cool and good, and anyone who doesn't submit to the forced drug programms voluntarily is evil & anti social. When it talks about these things at all. Conspiracy theorists have the opportunity to provide much more simple, consistent explanations that explain what seems to be going on, and frequently they do. That's not to say there aren't cranks and crazies trying to talk about holographic projections and timmed explosives on 9-11 (does new york city even really exist--thats what I want to know personally), but frankly the conventional narrative weavers could learn alot from people like Alex Jones.

>>31803 >i like how you first said conspiratards are dumb cause they want simple so thats why they like em and now you want to say they are dumb cause conspiracies are too complex. Make up your mind. Not him, but that happens. Usually the simplicity of a conspiracy theory will make a person dream up complexity to adjust it to the real world. The people who scream "MUH JEWS" are perfect example of that if you interacted with them. The very simple and naive idea that Jews somehow are out to get the white race has to be shifted so much to make sense historically that it becomes comedically complex. I saw someone say that the cold war was actually jews controlling both east and west to weaken the white race. Which god, that's a multi decade conspiracy across two nations that are opposed to each other in times where fast communication didn't exist. That instantly gets so weirdly complex I have no words for it. Usually "MUH JEWS" doesn't stop here, as most people who think like that also believe jews have been conspiring for millenia. Which to make sense of, you need to believe Jews somehow are a hivemind where everyone works for the common jewish interest, and not only that, but they also can make plans that span centuries. Which when you think about it ends in this weird position. White nationalist usually base their belief on the idea of master race, but apparenly jews can't be it, even though not only they keep down "muh whitey" for as long as time exist, they also do it for centuries while planning out of world events. You might say I'm making it up, but no. That's what you genuinely read these people say. You might say it's a joke or whatever, but someone is passionate enough about it to make countless .jpg about this topic, which they wouldn't do if it was just a joke.

>>31815 Actually returning to this for few seconds as a semi-joke. I'll show you a good meta conspiracy. What if conspiracy theories and whackjobs who spread them are so common on the internet, because they make it easy to dismiss real issues? Someone could make a coherent, but a bit controversial statement, but he will be washed away by others calling him just an other schizo because conspiracy theory nutjobs have been selected by big tech algorythms to make every opposition look crazy.

>>31804 > Complexity is extremely efficient at shrouding intent if stratified and spread among many hands. Incompetence in ranks is a huge benefit. However, maybe I am not the one to explain it as doing so in detail would easily dwarf this entire thread in length. Instead of breaking it down point by point with fleshed out logic, references, and examples, I'll just rant a thought exercise. :) I know about compartmentalization. Yes, the more complex an operation is, the more likely you can separate knowledge of one part from another, however you also do increase attack surface for people to know *something* is happening. And even with compartmentalization, while most don't know the whole picture, with a larger operation you still will end up with at least some # more people who know enough of the whole picture than with a smaller op, and well, pennies add up to dollars. > Do an honest cognitive exercise and think about each point you made: make like the Fabian Society or Freemasons or British Royalty or Rhodes Scholars (or one of the other hundreds of long-term planning fraternities in the last few centuries) and figure out what you want to change about the world. How would you use networks of powerful associates, exorbitant wealth, public and/or private recognition, and top down control to make each of these things not a problem, just as your predecessors did? In making this post I definitely was thinking about suggesting we blue-team for conspiracies. That would be a pretty fun thread to make, I think! >or any other number of "conspiracies" you refuse to define as such that you take for granted? How do those exists with your conditions? I did not object to the ability of people to conspire. I was referencing a very specific type of psychology that is susceptible to claims that imply you can make the entire scientific community consistently lie about a significant topic (lol), or that le jews invisibly mastermind everything. I was quite clear that many of the things you just referenced are doable, like lobbying, operations within a reasonable scope like copying some IP packet headers or killing some dudes or experimenting on people using good opsec. Just noting that even in these cases, once you go beyond a certain scale it is very, very difficult to avoid the action being attributed to your group. Your compartmentalization is great at preventing the blame from landing anywhere concrete, but cannot guarantee non-attribution in general. I suppose it definitely helps to not be keeping records of your misdeeds like United States SIGINT agencies do since those can be leaked and hold more water than accusations from some random defector :) As for human proxying and distorting information for outsiders, secure comms protocol between these proxies, all while maintaining some hierarchy where your real guys are at the top, I've definitely thought a lot about that. Here's an interesting one, of a simple criminal conspiracy you might observe in a crime movie: say you need to organize the robbery of a jewelry store. You do some research on the area and find a highway that has a curved tunnel soon after the on-ramp, and a very small on-ramp. Your goal for getting away from any cops is to make sure that the on-ramps are clogged by some mass after you pass through, and that once you get into the tunnel you get out of your car and into an inconspicuous car waiting for you. So you need to have some proxy recruit a few randoms of the street to be ready to park their car on the on-ramp, and a getaway driver to idle his car in the tunnel waiting for you. Also due to many cameras, in order to actually reach the store without being followed by the cameras you may need to have a rented/stolen car that you switch to on the way there. You need a handful of people paid enough to clog the on-ramp, one better-paid/trained one to idle in the tunnel, and maybe a few people to rob with you, and a way to get these cars without ID or being tracked. So you (or your inner circle) need secure communications, a collective ring of long-lived proxies, who will have their own larger ring of a little lesser lived proxies, and you lengthen the chain however much you need to ensure distance from any operation, and you use each proxy for as few different operations as possible. And of course you can break these organizations into many cells that all have networks together- as you say lobbyists and thinktanks that are networked together to influence the law. Of course, the less your hierarchy is related to outright material action the better, since you incur less risk in transmitting your commands. Perhaps you can have separate branches, ones more for influencing politicians, ones for influencing the political thought of the upper class, your left hand for counterintelligence and taking down opposing orgs or individuals, etc. However, the more plausible deniability, distance from your lowest levels, and isolation you have between all these networks for security reasons, the less fine-grained your control is over the world- there is literally nothing puppeting peoples' every single action. Power is much more background and 'low level' than that. What I was getting at in the OP is a very particular type of user who illogically thinks that great power can act with maximum control at every level of the hierarchy rather than the power being 'distilled' between every level, and thinks that it is possible to exercise power without anyone noticing. They are also generally laughably off in terms of guessing as to who actually has power, assuming everything is completely central. In the real world there are plenty of good things and people that exist (like this website :) ) that this type of user implies cannot exist, or technologies like cryptography that can offer resistance to evildoers and whose effectiveness has done nothing but increase, and just a general lack of nuance in pretty much anything they set their eyes on, and a disturbing lack of optimism.

The whole jew thing is pretty complex tho. I mean this idea has been going around for at least one millenia. This is one interesting article I read: https://www.kabbalah.info/bb/why-do-people-hate-jews-old/ would really love to hear lains opinion on 1000 years of anti-semitism

>31815 >longterm movements are impossible kek religions span millennia. You fabricate restrictions and drive into a tree due to it. The current woke movement for example also is founded in thinkers in the 30s picked up by grifters in the 70s and now almost a century later it bears full fruit.

>>31816 This idea goes back to the Roswell incident in 1947 (and probably much further). Some credible experts have suggested that the US military put the idea of flying saucers into the media to preempt anyone prying into what really happened because they were testing something there themselves.

>>32217 I don't know of any thinkers from the 1930s who would applaud people sitting around on twitter in 2022 complaining about each others' choice of language and entertainment, or who could even have been able to forsee such a thing.

>>32244 Do you really need it explained that bunch of people meeting at their university to debate nonsense and write open letters about it ain't much different? Sure its slower but same dynamic with same type of people. And you strapping the horse the wrong way, old gen dint foresee it, they simply provided the root ideas that serve as justification to the new ideology. How its executed with modern tools is an insignificant detail. Learning institutions served as spreaders of stupid ideas throughout the ages long before any electronics came to be.

>>32250 The actual ideas are entirely unrelated. People then were concerned with actual social and economic problems during a depression, even if they were just jerking off academically amongst other academics. Today they are concerned with racial representation in superhero movies. It isn't equivalent at all.