Speaker 1: And we're live bird. How you doing man?
Speaker 2: What's going on?
Speaker 3: Pete?
Speaker 1: How are you good? We had talked about getting together
and doing an episode on somebody besides Ted here, but
maybe we'll put that off into the future. That was
a fun one. Do you remember we talked about.
Speaker 2: Yes, I do. Yeah, I think I'm I'm getting ready
to do like this whole series on the subject. So
I think an episode with you would be great on that.
But yeah, we go wait on that, We wait on here,
go back to Ted. Can I ask you a question?
Speaker 3: Sure?
Speaker 4: Absolutely?
Speaker 2: What what's the fascination with Ted? Matt's That's the wrong
way to ask that question. Makes it sound like you
have a fascination with him? What is the emphasis on
Ted for you?
Speaker 1: Well, put it this way a lot most of the way,
most of what people know about Ted is Rush Limbaugh
getting on the radio and reading from Ted's manifesto and
then reading from al Gore's manifesto and going can you
tell the difference?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 2: Was that a good thing or a bad thing?
Speaker 1: At the well, it was it was a bad thing
because all he was. All they concentrate on is his environmentalism.
They don't concentrate on the fact that this guy lays out.
He's a psychologist, sociologist. I mean, his his breakdown of
why people are unfulfilled and why they're unhappy, and exactly
what the what the industrial revolution which he blames on
the Industrial Revolution may have done to people by by
depriving them of the power process and things like that
is I mean, put it this way. After if you
understand his power process and you understand what he talks
about with surrogate activity, once you really understand that, you
kind of have to apply it and look at it
in your own life. And when you start looking at
it in your own life, You're like, holy shit, this
guy's right. And I've never heard any you know, I've
never read anyone, heard anyone talk about it talk about
it the way he did, especially as he applies it
to the left. But I think it applies to everyone.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, because I I'm not as well read on
on TED as you are probably a lot of the listeners.
But I read what we're about to read today, and
I think that it actually does provide some areas for
you to be able to go off of Ted and
into other theorists who thought about the same kinds of things.
As he did, at least in this the particular purpose
of this essay that he wrote here, which I think
was written in the two thousands.
Speaker 4: Yeah, drown two thousand and five.
Speaker 2: He's doing a lot, and it's in prison. He's kind
of he writes a lot of stuff. I wonder how
much like access to like the television he has or
do you know any of this?
Speaker 4: I don't.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, you would think that he wouldn't
want any because of who he is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you would think that. But hes so on this part,
the diagnosis is pretty good at least, like I agree
with you, is what I'm saying. I think he nails
a framework for the system his favorite little phrase that
is reasonable. But I think and he even admits this
at the first part. We'll get into it more. That's
he's purposeful about not positively saying what the system is.
He admits it, which is cool. I think there are
other theorists who we could probably at the end of
this talk about who are perfectly willing to say what
the system is and define the system along economic boundaries
and a boundaries that Ted just doesn't touch for whatever reason.
I wish we could have him for an interview, so
we could ask, you know, why do you choose the
language you choose, because it's I wouldn't call it evasive,
but he constantly uses the term the system, and he
even says, as you'll notice, I'm not positively defining what
system is, so it's it's I don't know, we'll get
into it as we talk about it, because Pete, I'm
definitely wondering what you think could be fit into that,
you know, that shaped whole, what shape you think the
system is, because I think the people who Ted pulls
from Marxist are perfectly willing to be like, oh, it's
industrial capitalism. And in this particular essay doesn't really come
up much like as a as a topic. He says
the system, and again you've read more than him, So
just off of that, do you have any thoughts on
maybe why he uses the term the system instead of
anything else.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think he was looking for something to anthropomorphose. I
think he was trying to turn it. He's trying to
make it human. There's a couple points in it, I think,
especially in part three, where it seems like he's really
struggling to make it into an organic being. That actually
has that actually has purpose.
Speaker 2: I thought something similar to that when I was reading it.
What I thought was him talking about the system almost
makes it sound like he's writing fiction, like he's writing
a novel. He's trying to tell a story more than
he's actually trying to give an example or an allegory.
So if you want to treat if we treat it
that way, then it's you just have to approach it
with different lenses. It's this is not a hardcore philosophical
logical document. This is kind of a story.
Speaker 4: Yep.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it really is. But as we read,
people will see that the story is the story comes
to life and comes to reality. So I will start reading, okay,
and you are you?
Speaker 2: Are you going to take the reading and I'll take
the commentary. Are we reversing what we used to do?
Speaker 1: Yep, I'm going to really, and you're gonna.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna sit back, I'm gonna do I'm gonna do
what you do. I'm gonna chill, I'm.
Speaker 1: Gonna and you're gonna stop me when you want.
Speaker 2: To Okay, okay, and hey, you stop when you want
to stop.
Speaker 1: Too, Okay, I will oh, I will believe me oh yeah, okay,
all right. He starts with a Jacques little quote, The
supreme luxury of the Society of technical necessity will be
to grant the bonus of useless revolt and acquiescent smile.
Liewell is just I mean, I have so much a
little here, and it's just you pick it up, you
read two pages, and you're like, all right now, I
got to stop and think about this for a week.
Speaker 2: Yes, one of those guys, Yes, yes, one of those
all right, a guy who've notoriously had said Ted has
taken a lot from I think people should go back
and read him, because you can be like your own Ted.
Speaker 1: Because don't take that the wrong way.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: The system has played a trick on today's would be
revolutionaries and rebels. The trick is so cute that if
it had not consciously planned, one, if it had not
been consciously planned, one would have to admire it's almost mathematical,
mathematical elegance. Starts off with a very rough Bardian way here,
what the system is not? Let's begin by making clear
that the system, what the system is not. The system
is not George W. Bush and his advisors and appointees.
It is not the cops who maltreat protesters. It is
not the CEOs of multinational corporations, and it is not
the Frankensteins in their laboratories who criminally tinker with the
genes of living things. Hey, mister fauci, how are you doing.
In fact, all of these people are servants of the system,
but in themselves they do not constitute the system. In particular,
the personal and individual values, attitudes, beliefs, and behavior of
all of these people may be significantly in conflict with
the needs of the system. To illustrate with an example,
the system requires respect for property rights, yet CEOs, cops, scientists,
and politicians sometimes steal.
Speaker 2: And speak, I just want to met just the system
requires respect for property rights. Just again, I want to
build a case later on. Everybody, just remember that line.
That's very important. But he kind of just slips it in.
There's other people who say exactly the same thing.
Speaker 1: Okay, So yet the system requires respect for property rights,
yet CEOs, cop scientists and politicians sometimes steal parentheses. In
speaking of stealing, we don't have to confine ourselves to
actual lifting of physical objects. We can include all illegal
means of acquiring properties, such as cheating on income tax,
accepting bribes, or any other form of graft or corruption.
But the fact that CEO's cop scientists and politicians sometimes
steal does not mean that stealing is part of the system.
On the contrary, when a copper a politician steals something,
he is rebelling against the system's requirement of respect for
law and property. Yet even when they are stealing, these
people remain servants of the system as long as they
publicly maintain their support for law and property.
Speaker 4: You want to stop kind.
Speaker 2: Of a cocked opinion there by ted that paying your
income tax is it's not just illegal. What did he say?
I didn't like that one kind of a cucked out
opinion by him cheating on your income tax illegal means
of acquiring property. I think one thing that is interesting
that we probably should keep in mind is he is
talking about a system of tax collection. He's talking about
a system, he's talking about the political system. But he's
also talking about non state actors here. So I don't
know how you picture it in your head. I don't
really I feel like you could also use the word
the elites here.
Speaker 1: What do you think, Yeah, yeah, he's just not using
that word, and I don't think he ever uses that
word in industrial society and its future as well.
Speaker 2: I don't think so. Yeah, he's a little bit evasive
on labeling a particular thing that may be on purpose.
There is something that when you get to the end
of this section that I want to read, I think
is really import Sure, but you could continue, okay.
Speaker 1: Whatever illegal acts may be committed by politicians, cops or
CEOs as individuals, theft as individuals, theft, bribery, and graft
are not part of the system, but diseases of the system.
The less stealing there is, the better the system functions.
And that is why the servants and boosters of the
system always advocate obedience to the law in public, even
if they may sometimes find it convenience to break the
law in private. Take another example, Although the police are
the system's enforcers, police brutality is not part of the system.
When the cops beat the crap out of a suspect,
they are not doing the system's work. They are only
letting out their anger and their own anger and hostility.
The system's goal is not brutality or the expression of anger.
As far as police work is concerned, the system's goal
is to compel obedience to its rules, and to do
so with the least possible amount of disruption, violence, and
bad publicity. Thus, from the system's point point of view,
the ideal cop is one who never gets angry, never
uses any more violence and necessary, and as far as
and as far as possible, relies on manipulation rather than
force to keep people under control. Police brutality is only
another disease of the system, not part of the system.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think he nailed I think he
nails it there. I hinting a little bit more towards
some sort of an engine, right that whatever system he's
talking about is a system that prefers the social situation
to be smooth rather than chaotic. That's all that I'm
getting from that. As far as constructing what the system
looks like, well, he's.
Speaker 3: Just laying out an ideal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, different than any libertarian would be laying out
an ideal for sure. Yeah all right, So what are
okay for proof? Look at the attitude of the media.
The mainstream media almost universally condemned police brutality. Of course,
the attitude of the mainstream media represents, as a rule,
the consensus of opinion among the powerful classes in our
society as to what is good for the system. That's
I think he nails.
Speaker 3: It right there.
Speaker 4: Sure, yeah, I mean they're just yeah, okay.
Speaker 1: What has just been said about theft, graft and police
brutality applies also to issues of discrimination and victimization, such
as racism, sexism, homophobia, poverty, and sweatshops. All of these
are bad for the system. For example, the more that
black people feel themselves scorned or excluded, the more likely
they are to turn to crime, and the less they
are to educate themselves for careers that will make them
useful to the system. Modern technology, with its rapid long
distance transportation and its disruption of traditional ways of life,
has led to the mixing of population, so that nowadays
people of different races, nationalities, cultures, and religions have to
live and work side by side. If people hate or
reject one another on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, etc.
The resulting conflicts interfere with the functioning of the system.
Apart from a few old, fossilized relics of the past
like Jesse Helms, the leaders of the system know this
very well and that is why we are taught in
school and through media to believe that racism, sexism, homophobia,
and so forth are social evils to be eliminated.
Speaker 2: Right. So again, Ted is taking the stance of opposite
of those who would suggest that the system operates by
creating hatred and or discord and division amongst a population.
He's actually saying that the optimal way the system would
work is in the other direction, keeping things smooth, keeping
as few divisions amongst people as possible.
Speaker 4: Once again, the ideal.
Speaker 2: Well, I think it's interesting because I did an episode
with Keith Knight recently on Matt Tayubi Taybe's ten Rules
of Hate, and this runs up against that immediately. If
the object is to create things that are smooth rather
than things that are rough, I think that's pretty interesting
and I would probably fall on Ted's side if we're
talking about the anonymous system thing that we all have
a general idea of what he's talking about.
Speaker 1: Okay, no doubt some of the leaders of the system,
some of the politicians, scientists and CEOs, privately feel that
a woman's place is in the home, or that homosexuality
and interrational marriage are repugnant. But even if the majority
of them felt that way, it would not mean that racism, sexism,
and homophobia were part of the system any more than
the existence of stealing among the leaders means that stealing
is part of the system. Just as the system must
promote respect for law and property for the sake of
its own security, the system must also discourage racism in
other forms of victimization for the same reason. This is
why the system, notwithstanding any private deviation by individual members
of the elite, is basically committed to suppressing discrimination and victimization.
I would say that that has the system doesn't want that,
but the system is getting that in spades now when
sixteen years ago they weren't.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, I don't. Yes, yes, I think whatever is
being built here, which is why I think it's important
we try and come up with an idea of what
it looks like. Whatever's being built here changes over time,
The motivation changes over time. Nowadays, Yeah, that's exactly what
you do want. You don't want to be encouraging breaking up.
You need to encourage things to be smooth and stay together. Nationalize.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: For proof, look again at the attitude of the mainstream
media in spite of occasional timid descent by a few
of the most daring and reactionary commentators. Media propaganda overwhelmingly
favors racial and gender equality and acceptance of homosexuality and
interracial marriage. But we can't argue against that. I mean,
it was like that in two thousand and five, and
now it's But what you could argue is now that
it has reached radical activist levels in the corporate media.
Speaker 4: For sure.
Speaker 1: The system needs a population that is a meek, nonviolent, domesticated, docile,
and obedient. The system needs a population that is meek, nonviolent, domestic, domesticated, docile,
and obedient. Sorry, it needs to avoid any conflict or
disruption that could interfere with the orderly functioning of the
social machine. In addition to suppressing racial, ethnic, religious, and
other group hostilities, it also has to suppress or harness
its own advantage for its own advantage, all other tendencies
that could lead to disruption or disorder, such as machismo,
aggressive impulses, and any inclination to violence.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's an It's a great little blurb right there,
A thing that I thought was again interesting because of
the construction, the system needs a certain kind of population
a docile one in order to avoid disruption in the
orderly functioning of the social machine. So for Ted, at
least in this way, whatever the system is, its job
is to provide security for the social machine, whatever that is.
I just figured that's important to bring up. Oh, we
might actually get an opportunity to ask him some questions then, if, if,
if Ryan Dawson is doing an interview with him.
Speaker 1: Would be interesting. I hope he gets hope. For sure, Naturally, dational,
racial and ethnic antagonisms die slowly, Machies's aggressiveness and other
violent impulses are not easily suppressed, and attitudes towards attitudes
towards sex and gender identity are not transformed overnight. Therefore,
there are many individuals who resist these changes, and the
system is faced with the problem of overcoming their resistance. Now,
let me ask you a question. When you see, like
in the last four to five years, this rise in transrites,
do you is that when you read that last sentence
right there, or that last paragraph, especially when you see
it coming from the press, do you think that's what
he's talking about?
Speaker 2: Do you think that that's what it could be applied to?
Probably if it was in two thousand and five when
this was published. I don't think that's what he's talking about.
Speaker 1: No, No, I'm talking about Can it be applied that
way because as an example of what he's talking about.
Speaker 2: Yeah, for sure, No, absolutely, I think that is the case.
Speaker 4: Okay, all right?
Speaker 1: Part two, How the system exploits the impulse to rebel.
All of us in modern society are hemmed in by
a dense network of rules and regulations. We are at
the mercy of large organizations such as corporations, governments, labor unions, universities, churches,
and political parties. And consequently, we are powerless as a
result of the Yeah, as a result of the servitude,
the powerlessness, and the other indignities that the system inflicts
on us, there is widespread frustration, which leads to an
impulse to rebel. And this is where the system plays
its neatest trick. Through a brilliant sleight of hand, it
turns rebellion to its own advantage.
Speaker 2: I want to say, what the whole line about labor unions, churches,
political parties, universities and so we're powerless? Was it ted
who when he was talking about the left, was talking
about their victim complex.
Speaker 1: Well, the way he describes it is that they look
for a victim, but they never pick a victim who
is really victimized. They always pick something that society has
already decided is bad. So it's like, okay, oh slavery
is yeah, oh I'm against slavery. It's like, yeah, well
who Isn't you know? It's like in twenty twenty one,
who's not right? That's the way he describes it. In
part I would say in the first thirty sections of
industrial society in its future, and.
Speaker 2: And okay, and so then that I just wanted to
tie in. So there's a widespread frustration that leads to
an impulse to rebel, and then they turn the rebellion
into advantage. I guess we will see if he gives
us any examples on how that plays out. I'm already
on board, Pete. I'm gonna let you know I'm already
on board with that, because this is a and this
is a statement that has been said many times before.
I think Marks said I think Marx's quote is the
Second Revolution is always parody. I think that will come
back up later. I think I've always agreed with that concept.
I agree with Ted's two Derrida has a concept that
the minute that a revolution is recognized, it becomes imitated,
and once you start imitating revolution, it's not revolution anymore.
There's no spirit behind it. I agree with that offhand.
I think the easiest way to stop something is to
create a fifth column inside of it and completely undermine
it and make it lame, approachable, not rebellious at all.
Speaker 1: What the original punk rockers said was the first time
anyone said, hey, let's start a punk rock band, punk
rock was dead. Yeah, you get that, right, I mean,
that's actually, that's actually pretty brilliant.
Speaker 2: Yes, all right.
Speaker 1: Many people do not understand the roots of their own frustration.
Hence their rebellion is directionless. They know that they want
to rebel, but they don't know what they want to
rebel against. Luckily, the system is able to fill their
need by providing them with a list of standard and
stereotype grievances in the name of wish to rebel Racism, homophobia,
women's issues, poverty, sweatshops, the whole laundry bag of activist issues.
Speaker 2: Good anti activists really definitely, Ted is an anti activist,
and I've always appreciated it. The laundry bag of activist
issues is great.
Speaker 1: Well, do you know why he is against all.
Speaker 4: Of these issues?
Speaker 2: Not really, no.
Speaker 1: Because there's only one issue he cares about, this the environment,
and he considers these all to be a distraction.
Speaker 2: So it's okay. So he so he doesn't well, and
he probably thinks that, you know, his way is greater
than all of these other individual pathways. It's not like
he thinks they're on par with them. He just has
one niche I guess, man, I guess.
Speaker 1: And at the end of Industrial Society and its Future
he actually goes back to talking about the left, and
one of the things that he says, which is mind boggling,
and Aaron and I both just floored, says, when you
when you put together your revolution, do not include anyone
from the left, because they're all going to be distracted
by the issues that he just mentioned in that in that.
Speaker 2: Paragraph, h did he did he ever say anything about
the writer or is he has? He only ever made
a claim against the left.
Speaker 1: His critic the systems of the right and Industrial Society
in its future are very very few, but they mostly
lean towards how the hell do you let the left
get away.
Speaker 4: With this kind of thing. Okay, all right, Basically, all.
Speaker 1: Right, huge numbers of would be rebels take de bait
in fighting racism, sexism, et cetera, et cetera. They are
only doing the system's work for it. In spite of this,
they imagine that they are rebelling against the system. How
is this possible? First, fifty years ago, the system was
not yet committed to equality for black people, women, and homosexuals,
So that action in favor of the so that action
in favor of these causes really was a form of rebellion. Consequently,
these causes came to be conveniently regarded as rebel causes.
They have retained that status today simply as a matter
of tradition. That is, because each rebel generation imitates to
preceding generations.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, yes, that I think is that is what
I was trying to have come across. The quote is
exactly that.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Second, there are still significant numbers of people, as I
pointed out earlier, who resist the social changes that the
system requires. And some of these people even are authority
figures such as cops, judges, or politicians. These resistors provide
a target for the would be rebels. Someone for them
to rebel against commentators like Rush Limbaugh helped the process
by ranting against the activists, seeing that they have made
someone angry, fosters the activist illusions that they are rebelling.
That's that's a really I mean, like I said, when
industrial Society in its future, My favorite parts of it
is when he's basically talking psychology, He's he has a
window into it that is pretty special. Although I mean
he's borrowed from other people, but are there are some
things that are that I think mk Altrade's head specific.
Speaker 2: There's a way he delivers the content that is unique
to him. It is distinctly not from the left. It's
kind of like boomer rights boomer.
Speaker 4: He's a total boomer.
Speaker 2: He's a complete boomer. I'm glad you said it because
I have. I've thought for a long time the guy
was a boomer. I've said it as a joke, a
lot boomer hah, funny, But he like really has a
lot of boomer tendencies. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, but
his boomer delivery is the most unique thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it's it's actually powerful. I mean it speaks
to a gen.
Speaker 2: Yeah, No, it's it speaks to a whole group of
people who this these group of like situationist leftists who
like a lot of the opinions align with one another,
who are they're definitely not talking to, like right boo,
like the same kind of group that Tad is talking to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right. Third, in order to bring themselves into conflict.
Even with the majority of the system's leaders who fully
accept the social changes that the system demands, the would
be rebels insist on solutions that go farther than what
the system's leaders consider prudent, and they show exaggerated anger
over trivial matters. For example, they demand payment of reparations
to black people, and they often become raged at any
criticism of a minority group, no matter how cautious and reasonable.
In this way, the activists are able to maintain the
illusion that they are rebelling against the system, but the
illusion is absurd. Agitation against racism, sexism, homophobia, and the
like no more constitutes rebellion against the system than does
agitation against political graft and corruption. Those who work against
graft and corruption are not rebelling, but acting as the
systems enforcers. They are helping to keep the politicians obedient
to the rules of the system. Those who work against racism, sexism,
and homophobias similarly are acting as the systems enforcers. They
helped the system to suppress the deviant, racist, sexist, and
homophobic attitudes that caused problems for the system.
Speaker 4: Let me to keep going.
Speaker 2: Yeah, keep going.
Speaker 1: But the activists don't act only as the systems enforcers.
They also serve as a kind of lightning rod that
protects the system by drawing public resentment away from the
system and its institutions. For example, there were several reasons
why it was to the system's advantage to get women
out of the home and into the workplace fifty years ago.
If the system, as represented by the government of the media,
had begun out of the blue a propaganda campaign designed
to make it socially acceptable for women to center their
lives on careers rather than on the home, the natural
human resistance to change would have caused widespread public resentment.
What actually happened was that the changes were spearheaded by
radical feminists, behind whom the system institutions trailed at a
safe distance. Resentment of the more conservative members of society
was directed primarily against the radical feminists rather than against
the systems and its institutions, because the changes sponsored by
the institution by the system seems slow and moderate in
comparison with the more radical solutions advocated by feminists, and
even these relatively slow changes we're seen as having been
forced on the system by pressure from the radicals.
Speaker 2: Short, sweet to the point, and then he actually, you
might as well read that next portion immediately, because he
starts clumsily starts the paragraph, but it's just a summary
of the last paragraph.
Speaker 1: So Part three is called the systems need a trick. So,
in a nutshell, the systems need a trick as this
one for the sake of its own efficiency and security.
The system needs to bring about a deep and needs
to bring about deep and radical social changes to match
the change conditions resulting from technological proper us two. The
frustration of life under the circumstances imposed by the system
leads to rebellious impulses.
Speaker 4: Three.
Speaker 1: Rebellious impulses are co opted by the system and the
service of the social changes. It requires activists rebel against
the old and outmoded values that are no longer of
use to the system and in favor of the new
values that the system needs us to accept.
Speaker 3: Four.
Speaker 1: In this way, rebellious impulses, which otherwise might have been
dangerous to the system, are given an outlet that is
not only harmless to the system, but useful to it.
Speaker 4: Five.
Speaker 1: Much of the public resentment resulting from the imposition of
social changes drawn away from the system and its institutions
and are drawn away from the system and its institutions,
and is directed instead at the radicals who spearheaded the change.
Speaker 2: Right, So this is the system's need is trick his
the whole outline here, There was a concept pete from
the situationists, I guess like g. De Board for French
postmodernists basically came out of the Marxist tradition. They had
an idea that was called recuperation, which and this was
probably in the thirties or forties, maybe even the fifties,
and the basic summary was the system takes things that
are at once rebellious, commercializes them and turns them into
acceptable things, robbing them of their value for commercial purposes.
It also happens to take any aspect of rebellion out
of them. This was I think it was Gedboard who
came up with the idea itself in Yes, I have
it here, but it's in French. So the word that
he uses is recuperation in French. I'm not going to
do the pronunciation here in English. That means total exploitation
is the direct translation there. So that's this is an
idea that Ted is. I'm not trying to take anything
away from Ted. His summary of it is uniquely him.
I think it speaks to a lot of people who
aren't being spoke to by a bunch of French postmodernists
who people would never think to read. But they're agreeing
with Ted here. Good enough. But this is an idea
concept that's come up before. I think it would be
good for anybody who's interested in further development of this
concept to go and look at someone like Gie to Board.
Speaker 1: Let me go off topic for a second, since you
brought up postmodernism a couple of times. My friend LB Muniz,
who was on the show the other day and we
were talking about he wrote an article.
Speaker 4: Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 1: He wrote an article called the post Libertarian Moment, and
he talked about did you hear him talk about postmodernism?
Add yeah, what was your take on his take on that?
But it was a moment that he said postmodernism wasn't
an ideology, it was a moment events and born out
of that moment.
Speaker 2: Were these writers, Uh yeah, No, absolutely, I think I
think all acts of philosophy or moments, so I think that,
but I think all of them should be viewed that way,
not just postmodernism. For instance, I think liberalism is a
breakoff of medieval feudalism. Ultimately, it's a breakoff. It was
a technological attempt to move away because it shifted the
power away from the land owning class over to a
different class, the traditional aristocratic landowning class giving their power
away to the BORGEOISI basically that's a moment, and then
so there's a reaction to it. Hegelianism is a reaction
to the French Revolution. It's a moment in time. You
can't use Hegel direct from the book today. Anybody who
thinks you can lives in a universe where I guess
it's very easy to believe that things are all being
worked behind the scenes instead of a radical group explosions
of chaos that dominate the world that we exist in.
There's no dialectic really, But at the time this was
a technology that Hagel wanted to develop to read the
situation out. So I totally agree with that idea. It
is a moment in time. It's not something that one
should expect could be used today. Applies to whatever your
goals are today. It is very specifically something that comes
out of the Enlightenment, out of the reaction to the Enlightenment,
and happens in France in a particular context.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, all right, let's move on. Then we just
went over the systems in this trick is five points.
Of course, this trick was not planned and advanced by
the system's leaders, who are not conscious of having played
a trick at all. The way it works is something
like this. In deciding what positions take on any issue,
the editors, publishers, and owners of the media must consciously
or unconsciously balance several factors. They must consider how their
readers or viewers will react to what they print or
broadcast about the issue. They must consider how their advertisers,
their peers in the media and other powerful persons will react.
And they must consider the effect on the security of
the system of what they print or broadcast. Let me
ask you a question, do you think that I see
the New York Times editorial board in this light.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yes, I completely agree term corporate media. No, I mean,
that's why we use the term corporate media. It's very
specific groups.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay. These practical considerations will usually outweigh whatever personal
feelings they may have about the issue. The personal feelings
of the media leaders, their advertisers, and other powerful persons
are vary. They may be liberal or conservative, religious or religious,
or aesthetic. They may be liberal or conservative, religious, or aesthetic.
The only universal common ground among the leaders is their
commitment to the system, its security, and its power. Therefore,
within the limits imposed by what the public is willing
to accept. The principal factor determining the attitudes propagated by
the media is a rough consensus of opinion among the
media leaders and other powerful people as to what is
good for the system. Thus, when an editor or other
media leader sets out to decide what attitudes to take
towards a movement or cause, his first thought is whether
the movement includes anything that is good or bad for
the system. Maybe he tells himself that his decision is
based on moral, philosophical, or religious grounds, but it is
an observable fact that in practice the security of the
system takes precedence over all other factors in determining the
attitude of the media. Now, what I will say to
that is, I think they're also taking into consideration who
may be in charge of the system at that time
and how the system is supposed to work under that person,
because and I will just use a perfect what I
think is a perfect example. In twenty fifteen, the press
in this country were decidedly anti Black Lives Matter. They
had nothing good to say about them. They saw them
as a thorn in the side of the system, which
was run by Barack Obama at that time. But as
soon as the quote unquote Russian agent Nazi person who
wanted to put gays in camps came into power and
now presided over the system, they could use Black Lives
Matter to their advantage. And I believe that they did.
Speaker 2: I'm in total agreement with you, Pete. I think the
thing that what I find interesting is that Ted is
willing to say that a person's decision is primarily going
to be what's in service of the system. I guess
he doesn't mean profit seeking is a a What that means?
What motivation? It is there? It's it's really vague. I think, Uh,
these news editors who run stories right the headlines that
grab the eyes are playing to bases. They're just they're
playing to their bases, and one base happens to be
in power and also have a predominance in the news media.
The left absolutely has a predominance in the news media,
though Fox is the most watched mainstream show. Other than that,
I mean, you know, so I think that they're if
he means they're playing to basses first, that that that
their vision of the system is what they're playing to. Like,
what do you think, Pete, I don't know if I'm
lost here on that.
Speaker 1: I if they're playing going to the base. The way
it seems to happen now is they're playing to the
most radical side of the base, which would fit right
into what Ted's talking about here there now there, everything
is catered towards the activist, and according to Ted, that
is because the system needs understands that it needs changing,
and the way that it needs changing is in not
the perfect way the activist is trying to change it,
but in that direction.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I just I think in terms of the
system needing to service the social machine, that's the terms
in which I'm approaching this from. So how is it
doing that by it's a simple playing to your base
sort of thing, and then kind of it's it's all
about the war for the base and how you can
shape public opinion. And so it seems like the system
is a second order factor to culture or public opinion,
then it actually is the main thing between society and
the people.
Speaker 1: Sure, And you know, you can the way he's writing this,
you can see a lot of this into you can
read some into Jarvin's cathedral.
Speaker 4: Model, which I do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I certainly do.
Speaker 1: So, Yeah, I mean it's I guess that's an argument
that anyone can have that a lot of people want
to have. Is is the press and academia in charge
and pushing the government and pushing the culture which pushes
the government, or is the government in charge and they're
in charge of academia and they tell academia what to do,
and they tell what the press, they tell the press
what to do. I tend to lean more towards the
Jarvin side of it, that actually the press press academia
and at this point, and I don't think Jarvin would
agree with me, because he's very he's protective of big tech,
but I think big tech has a lot to do
with that. And someone who's worked in you know, worked
in Silicon Valley for two decades, I'm sure you know.
Speaker 4: All right, let me see we left.
Speaker 2: Left intelligentsia basically, I'm I'm much more in favor of
an opinion. If you try to apply ted to this
is a if that this system is whatever idiological, would
it be ethical? I don't care. Whatever ideological system, whatever
idea a liberal left intelligentsia would want, constitutes an idea
within the category system. If it's if it's literally, if
system quite literally equals left intelligentsia is ideal.
Speaker 1: System, and it would I'm in yeah, And it would
appear that the system wants that those ideas to be
adopted because it somehow sees that it's going to be
to their advantage to keep their stranglehold.
Speaker 2: And this is you read it from a power perspective.
It's not about the accumulation of wealth or you see
it as an influence.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I'm one of those people who I would rather have
power than wealth.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, yeah, all right.
Speaker 1: For example, if a news magazine editor looks at the
militia movement. He may or may not sympathize personally with
some of its grievances and goals, but he also sees
that there is a strong consensus among his advertisers and
his peers in the media that the militia movement is
potentially dangerous to the system and therefore should be discouraged.
Under these circumstances, he knows that his magazine had better
taken negative attitude towards the militia movement. The negative attitude
of the media, presumably is part of the reason why
the militia movement has died down. Now, there was a
big militia movement through the nineties, and they definitely went
to war against that. When the same editor look at
radical feminism, he sees that some of its more extreme
solutions would be dangerous to the system, but he also
sees that feminism holds much that is useful to the system.
Women's participation in the business and technical world integrates to
them and their families better into the system. Their talents
are of service to the system in business and technical matters.
Feminist emphasis on ending domestic abuse and rape also serves
a system needs since rape and abuse, like other forms
of violence are dangerous to the system. Perhaps most important,
the editor recognizes that the pettiness and meaninglessness of modern
housework and the social is isolation of the modern housewife
can lead to serious frustration for many women, frustration that
will cause problems for the system unless women are allowed
in outlet through careers in the business and technical world.
Even if this editor is a macho type who personally
feels more comfortable with women in a subordinate position, he
knows that feminism, at least in a relatively modern, moderate form,
is good for the system. He knows that his editorial
posture must be favorable towards moderate feminism, otherwise he will
face the disapproval of his advertisers and other powerful people.
This is why the mainstream media's attitude has been generally
supportive of moderate feminism, mixed towards radical feminism, and consistently
hostile only towards the most extreme feminist positions.
Speaker 2: So it's the advertisers who control everything. Pete, did we
narrow it down? Do we have our do we have
our cup locks?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 1: I guess we know who goes against the wall first.
Speaker 2: Well, I've said, I've said that at least for a decade, Pete,
I've been saying that for at least one decade.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a lot of our friend Bellim I Fitzpatrick's former
Green anarchist. He the first time I ever ever interviewed him,
he made a big point of dressing how dangerous he
thinks advertising is.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, it's for sure. Advertising and macroeconomics are two
very powerful forms of mind control that are used all
the time.
Speaker 1: Through this type of process, rebel movements that are dangerous
to the system are subjected to negative propaganda, while rebel
movements that are believed to be useful to the system
are given cautious encouragement in the media. Unconscious absorption of
media propaganda influences would be rebels to rebel in ways
that serve the interests of the system.
Speaker 4: Let me go on.
Speaker 1: The university intellectuals also play an important role in carrying
out the system's neatest trick. Though they like to fancy
themselves independent thinkers, the intellectuals are allowing for individual exceptions.
The most oversocialized, the most conformist, the tamest and most domesticated,
the most pampered, dependent and spineless group in America today.
A result their impulse to rebel is particularly strong, but
because they are incapable of independent thought, real rebellion is
impossible for them. Consequently, they are suckers for the system's trick,
which allows them to irritate people and enjoy does it irritate,
irritate people and enjoy the illusion of rebelling without ever
having to challenge the systems basic values. That's from Harvard Man.
Speaker 2: So easy, so easy to be a rebel these days.
Speaker 1: Oh, you don't really have to speak out against it.
Speaker 4: I mean.
Speaker 1: I think that they're just going too far, you know.
I mean, if it was if it's racism, if it's
I mean, what right winger isn't going to be Like
most right wingers are like, yeah, racism sucks, it should
be I won't be racist.
Speaker 4: This is stupid.
Speaker 1: But they just they went they went too far with
the trans shit man, the trans kids, the four year olds.
Speaker 2: They're in lots of directions. Piece, you're going really far
in a lot of directions, actually very quickly.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Because they are the teachers of young people, the university
intellectuals are in a position to help the system plays
trick on the young, which they do by steering young
people's rebellious impulses towards the standard stereotype targets racism, colonialism,
women's issues, et cetera. Young people who are not college
students learn through the media or through personal contact of
the social justice issues for which students rebel, and they
and they imitate the students. Thus, thus a youth culture
develops in which there is a stereotype mode of rebellion
that spreads through imitation. Appears, just as hairstyle, clothing style, hairstyles,
clothing styles, and other fads spread through imitation.
Speaker 2: I mean means I'm even gonna say meme.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I mean, really, if you understand exactly what
you're saying, especially in part three, he's just laying out
what Antifa is to the.
Speaker 2: System, there's a matter of I don't know. I don't
know if you've ever spoken to a college student. I've
spoken to a lot of college students who are very
much in this What Ted would probably be talking about.
This milieu of very stereotyped rebels, like your next door
neighbor rebel type people, and it's a lifestyle is also
something that needs to be understood, is it's these days.
Ted couldn't have known this in two thousand and five,
and apparently we got a message that he has no
TV access. I don't know if you saw that no
TV access. He just has a CCTV that broadcasts religious
stuff and other educational stuff. So he couldn't have called
that then. He certainly wouldn't be able to call it now,
But there is certainly the average college student is I
would use the word under attack by from every vector
possible into a very subtle kind of behavior. Language is
mostly inculcated through means like social media is doing this
to them their friends. The language they use in memes
includes these kinds of whether it be terminology, pronoun designation
of some kind, it's it's the transfer of obedience via
culture is subtle, it's not direct. It's advertised in a
lot of ways. And I think that that that's probably
how people are firstly put into this category of being
okay with feeling like a rebel. In the system is
they have a lot of support in whether it be
an academia, Kyle, Their academic system is what supports the
idea of being number one a rebel but also being
completely the most normal person of all time, the most
useful slave of all time. It is the academic bubble
that allows for that to be taking place. I think
that's just important to point out if you look at
how the system looks, a college student really is a
type of person these days, like how you would say,
like a goth is a type of person. You can
probably guess what sort of music they listen to, how
they dress. A college student is a type of person.
Their previous identity, no matter what it was, gets washed
away or at least cleansed enough that they can overlay
college students on top, and it works about seventy percent
of the time, meaning they don't shed it off once
they go back or they get their degree, or it
seems to work a good percentage of the time. That
those people are just like stable rebels who are rebellious
in the college days, and then they bring their entire language,
they bring their entire culture out of college into the
hr department where they and the marketing department where they
continue to perpetuate slightly more extreme versions of that as
they suffer to the peer pressure of their own children
when they don't want to be nagged, but the next
thing that makes them behave in a certain way. So
I think it's subtle. I don't even think that this
what what I think is the big danger is as
industrial as what Ted seems to think that it.
Speaker 1: Is, okay, cool, Well, what you're describing when you say,
you know, just like a goth is what the last
episode our release was about. It's about identity. Everything's about
everything is about identity. People put on an identity, they
adopted ide all use it as an identity, and then
anything that is that threatens that identity, or if you're
somebody who shares that identity with them, and then you
say one little you know. What's funny is when you
watch leftists on Twitter, that one deviates, maybe one goes turf,
and now they're they're out of the group. They're out
of the end group. Now, oh yep, you can see that.
You can see that in libertarianism too.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're not an anarchist anymore.
Speaker 2: There's I think it's it's Hegel has a well known
concept of uh wanting to be validated for your identity,
that that you you you want to have an identity,
and that you want your identity to be validated. This
has been tested out. It seems that most people are
are would rather they they get validation out of their
near group rather than all people across. So, for instance,
a man who is poor and lives in Ghana compares
himself and his wealth to his local people and considers
wealthy the people within his group who are wealthy. He
doesn't go oh, people in a different country, say Sweden,
Those people are the people who I compare myself to. Economically,
I don't think about wealth in terms of the way
a Swede thinks about wealth. Same thing. So people are
localistic when they think in terms of their social status
how they view themselves among their peer groups. I think
the symptom of the West seems to be, and it
has been since the Enlightenment, has been that the emphasis
on individualism, whether by consequence or on purpose, gave rise
to a habitual need for identity and a validation of
that identity as an individual person. It's very easy to
do that in these peer groups that pop up in
these kinds of systems, because you can just create yourself
within a simple mold and boom, the job is done.
Now I have my own identity. I don't have a
crisis happening anymore. That seems to be a huge symptom
of the problem of being in the West and having
this the way we think is just all about identity,
and we can't help it. I don't know if it's
right or wrong, but it's the way we've been brought.
Speaker 1: Up, absolutely all right. Part four. The trick is not perfect. Naturally,
the system's trick does not work perfectly. Not all the
positions adopted by the activist community are consistent with the
needs of the system. In this connection, some of the
most in this connection, some of the most important difficulties
that confront the system are related to the conflict between
the two different types of propaganda that the system has
to use, integration propaganda and agitation propaganda. Integration propaganda is
the principal mechanism of socialization and modern society. It is
propaganda that is designed to instill in people the attitudes, beliefs, values,
and habits that they need to have in order to
be safe and useful tools of the system. It teaches
people to permanently repress or sublimate their emotional impulses that
are dangerous to the system. Its focus is on long
term attitudes and deep seated values of broad applicability, rather
than on attitudes towards specific current issues. You want me
to go onto agitation propaganda?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Sure.
Speaker 1: Agitation propaganda plays on people's emotions so as to bring
out certain attitudes or behaviors in specific current situations. Instead
of teaching people to suppress dangerous emotional impulses, it seeks
to stimulate certain emotions for well defined purposes, localized in time.
Speaker 2: Keep going, Yeah, keep going. I think you're just outlining
a strategy.
Speaker 4: Yep.
Speaker 1: The system needs an orderly, docile, cooperative, passive, dependent population.
Above all, it requires a nonviolent population, since it needs
the government to have a monopoly on the use of
physical force. For this reason, integration propaganda has to teach
us to be horrified, frightened, and appalled by violence, so
that we will not be tempted to use it, even
when we are very angry by violence, I mean physical
attacks on human beings. More generally, integration propaganda has to
teach us soft, cuddly values that emphasize non aggressiveness, interdependence,
and cooperation. On the other hand, in certain contexts, the
system itself finds it useful or necessary to result to brutal,
aggressive methods to achieve its own objectives. The most obvious
example of such methods is warfare. In wartime, the system
relies on agitation propaganda in order to win public approval
of military action. It plays on people's emotions to make
feel frightened and angry at their real or supposed enemy.
In this situation, there is a conflict between integration propaganda
and agitation propaganda. Those people in whom the cuddly values
and the eversions of violence have been most deeply planted
can't easily be persuaded to approve a bloody military operation.
Speaker 4: Here are the.
Speaker 1: Systems trick backfires. To some extent, The activists who have
been rebelling all along in favor of the values of
integration propaganda continue to do so. During wartime. They opposed
the war effort not only because it is violent, but
because it is racist, colonialist, imperialist, etc. All of which
is contrary to the soft, cuddly values taught by integration propaganda.
I don't know how much that works anymore.
Speaker 2: I was going to say that what works now is
the war's turned inward, obviously, And I think if you
turn the war inward it works just fine.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I don't think the left would have any problem with
calling a war against other American people, racist, colonialist, imperial
It just has to be not a racist war, not
a colonialist war, not an imperialist war, aka a war
against the domestic citizen of the United States.
Speaker 1: Popular Liberty. Andrew says, Jesus pete. When you hear that line,
did you just say, nap, We're taught to a bore
of violence. He says, yeah, yeah, all right. The systems
trick also backfires where the treatment of animals is concerned. Inevitably,
many people extend to animals to soft values and the
aversions of violence that they are taught with respect to humans.
They are horrified by the slaughter of animals from meat
and other and by other practices harmful to animals, such
as the reduction of chickens to egg laying machines kept
in tiny cages, or the use of an animals and
science experiments. Up to a point, the resulting opposition to
mistreatment of animals may be useful to the system because
of vegan diet is more efficient in terms of resource
utilization than a carnivorous one. Veganism, if widely adopted, will
help to ease the burden placed on the Earth's limited
resources by the growth of the by the growth of
the human population. But activists insistence on ending the use
of animals and scientific experiments is squarely in conflict with
the system's needs, since for the foreseeable future there is
not likely to be any workable sustain substitute for living
animals as research subjects. All the same, the fact that
the system's trick does backfire here and there does not
and there does not prevent it from being, on the whole,
a remarkably effective device for turning rebellious impulses to the
system's advantage. It has to be conceded that the trick
described here is not only is not the only factor
determining the direction the rebellious impulse has taken our society.
Many people today feel weak and powerless for the very
good reason that the system really does make us weak
in powerless, and therefore identify obsessively with victims, with the
weak and the oppressed. That's part of the reason why
victimization issues such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and neo colonialism
have become standard activist issues. I even see some libertarianism
in there.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, without a doubt. Anywhere where the activism can
be played right. Oh well, actually he gives the example.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, he says, the then therefore identify obsessively with victims,
with the weak and the oppressed. I mean, I was
just having another argument in DMS today with somebody who
made the claim that government is equal slavery, and I
presented them with the eighteen twenty eight Webster's Dictionary definition
of slavery and said, how does this comport with what
you see the government doing today? And all they said
was I proved it in my article.
Speaker 2: Oh come man, I feel like you could do one sentence, right,
You can be like, well, here you go, one sentence.
Speaker 1: I mean, we don't even have It's amazing that some
of the people who you are writing articles and they're
getting spread widely. It's just it's all hyperbole. And I'm
guilty of it too, you know, in the past. I
try to keep that for substack now, but it as
far as you know. I mean, if you seek to
write an article saying the government is slavery, I can
prove that the government is the government bad enough flavery?
Speaker 2: Well does it need to be slavery? Isn't it bad enough?
Speaker 4: Of Well?
Speaker 1: How about how about just asking this question of that person.
Maybe you want to think of yourself as a slave.
Do you want to think of yourself as a slave.
Speaker 2: This is a good counter to somebody who's caught in
the idea that the government has to be slavery for
it to be persuadably a bad thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, maybe your identity, Maybe your identity is caught up
in being a slave. I don't know, maybe that's part
of your ideology. Maybe the ideology that you hold you
have to be a slave within that ideology, or the
ideology falls apart.
Speaker 2: Or the slave is the victim and you have your
master's slave mentality, and your victimhood is what drives your
desire to do this rebelling thing which has actually been
made in service of the establishment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, comes back to its head again. All right, this
I think this is Yeah, this is the last part.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and by the way, not a strongly persuasive example
because it's a really long example.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I know it's damn boomer. All right, Yes,
Part five. An example I have with me an anthropology
textbook in which I've noticed several nice examples of the
way in which university intellectuals helped the system with its
trick by disguising conformity as criticism of modern society. The
cutest of these examples is found on page is one
thirty two to one thirty six, where the author quotes,
in adapted form an article by one Ronda K. Williamson
an intersect person that is a person born with both
male and female physical characteristics. I'm a suit hermaphrodite. Is
that what he's said. I don't know. I've never heard
the term intersect before.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's what it is, or that's what they're saying.
It is a person born with both male and female
physical characteristics.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I would assume they talked, but you got.
Speaker 2: Jesus, I don't know what that means. Man, Let's keep going.
Ron de Kay Williamson.
Speaker 1: Williamson states that the American Indians not only accepted intersex persons,
but especially valued them. She contrasts this attitude with the
Euro American attitude, which she equates with the attitude that
her own apparents adopted toward her. Williamson's parents mistreated her cruelly.
They held her in contempt for her intersex condition. They
told her she was cursed and given over to the devil,
and they took her to charismatic churches to have the
demon casta editor. This is like just a terrible B movie.
She was even given napkins in which she was supposed
to cough out the demon. But it is obviously ridiculous
to equate this with the modern euro American attitude. It
may approximate the euro American attitude of one hundred and
fifty years ago, but nowadays almost any American educator, psychologist,
or mainstream clergyman would be horrified at that kind of
treatment of an intersex person. The media would never dream
of portraying such treatment in a favorable light. Average middle
class Americans today may not be as accepting of the
intersex condition as the Indians were, but few would fail
to recognize the cruelty of the way in which Williamson
was treated. Williamson's parents obviously were deviants, religious kooks whose
attitudes and beliefs were way out of the line with
the values of the system. It's amazing to me that
he doesn't actually take into account that she just could
be lying.
Speaker 2: That's dude, that's hilarious, because that was the first thought
I had, She's just lying.
Speaker 1: It's like, let's take it how WoT we take it
to consideration is making this ship up?
Speaker 2: Man, that's the mockabellion. That's the whole point of reading
that fucking overly sized James Burnham book, so that you
can go, what if they're just fucking lying exactly? Such
an important thing to remember is that Ted really probably
takes a lot of things that face value for a
neurochemical reason or something like that.
Speaker 1: You gotta wonder what that math brain.
Speaker 2: Is like, Oh, it's probably loud. It's probably really loud.
Speaker 1: Thus, while putting on a show of criticizing modern Euro
American society, Williamson really is attacking only deviant minorities and
cultural laggards. Gotta love the term laggard. Gotta use that one.
Speaker 2: In a long time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it's been a while. Devant minorties and cultural
laggards who have not adapted to the dominant values of
present day America. Haviln, the author of the book, on
page twelve, portrays cultural anthropology as i kinoclastic, as challenging
the assumptions of modern Western society. This is so far
contrary to the truth that it would be funny if
it weren't so pathetic. The mainstream of modern American anthropology
is objectly subservient to the values and asump assumptions of
the system. When today's anthropologists pretend to challenge the values
of their system, typically they challenge only the values of
the past, obsolete and outmoded values now held by no
one but deviance and laggards who have not kept up
the cultural changes that the system requires of us. He
brings that up a lot an industrial society in its future.
When he talks about the left, says, the left is
always concentrating on things that the ninety nine point nine
percent of the population has just swept under the rug,
and it's like, okay, we care anymore, and they just
they concentrate on that point one percent and just how
you know, I mean, it's like, well, now, it's like
with the white supremacists, the freak. I mean, literally, how
many white supremacists do you think there are in this country?
I mean people who would literally identify because I've met
a couple they're not like, they don't hide the fact
that they're white supremacists.
Speaker 4: They're actually really.
Speaker 1: Proud of it, and they like to talk about it.
Speaker 4: They're not hiding it.
Speaker 2: Very interesting. I also think that here Ted is talking
about the I almost feel like he's talking about everyone else.
Here he's talking about the left is challenging people. The
left has to challenge everyone else, But they don't actually
challenge what people believe today. They challenge what they think
people believed forty years ago or fifty years ago. That
they're arguing against the base, the large group, but they're
not actually arguing against them. They're arguing the idea of them,
which I think, by the way, social media coming into
the foray has really permitted this to go completely out
of control, because now you could spend twenty hours a
day arguing for against a group of outloaded ideas that
nobody actually believes anymore. I mean, we see this all
the time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Yeah, it's amazing Andrew, Wow, Yeah, that's so boomer
to just believe it at face.
Speaker 4: Value, all right.
Speaker 1: Haveln's use of Williamson's article illustrates this very well, and
it represents the general slant of Havelen's book. Havelen plays
up ethnographic facts that teach his readers politically correct lessons,
but he understates or omits altogether ethnographic facts that are
politically incorrect Thus, while he quotes Williamson's account to emphasize
the indians acceptance of intersex persons, he does not mention,
for example, that among many of the Indian tribes, women
who committed adultery had their noses cut off, whereas no
such punishment was inflicted on male adulterers, or that among
the Crow Indians, a warrior who was struck by a
stranger had to kill the offender immediately, else else he
was irretrievably disgraced in the eyes of his tribe. Nor
does Havelin discussed the habitual use of torture by the
Indians of the eastern United States. Of course, facts of
this kind represent violence, machismo, and gender discrimination. Hence they're
inconsistent with the present day values of the system and
tend to get censored out as politically incorrect. I mean, yeah, okay, Boomer, Yeah,
they're inconsistent.
Speaker 4: We know this.
Speaker 2: Yes, that is the most Boomer think about. That was
the detraction into like a petty squab he probably had
with somebody one time. I do that, like, well, the
Indians killed one another too, So he wrote that. He
was like, I'm gonna fucking We're gonna write this one down. Yeah,
that was a big boomer digression. But the value there,
of course, is that there are things where you can
pinpoint what group is partaking in what the system needs.
When it is the group specifically avoiding talking about it,
it's pet projects and then talking about the bad side
of whatever it has a fascination of that. Oh yeah,
there's a particular group of people here who today are
a victim group who Okay, that means we can never
talk about anything bad that was ever done at any point.
Just clearly the left is aligning itself with this view.
I don't think the right seems to do this very much. Again,
I think he seems to be anti left Pete, which
is not something I knew, nor something I think a
lot of people know. Just if they hear about Ted
or see a couple of tweets about Ted, or watch
a documentary about him. He seems to be pretty anti left.
Like you've done them. But this is new to me.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, oh yeah, it was.
Speaker 1: He makes it immediately known in the first thirty part.
The industrial society's future is broken up into almost versus
like the Bible.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the first section of it is entirely about Hey,
the left sucks, don't they? And then it's it's just
a bunch of pages of that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I mean, and you also have to think that. Okay,
so the left is more prone to activism, and he
wants activism. He wants to take down technology, he wants
to take us back to the Bronze Age. But the
people who seem to be his most natural allies are
all worried about protesting against stuff that makes doesn't make
any sense to him, right, They're all protesting against things that,
you know, like he says, or just things that prop
up the system. There there for the systems good, where
he knows that to destroy technology, she destroys the system
as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, absolutely.
Speaker 1: Yet I don't doubt that Havilin is perfectly sincere in
his belief that anthropologists challenge the assumptions of Western society.
The capacity for self deception of our university intellectuals will
easily stretch that far. To conclude, I want to make
clear that I'm not suggesting that it is good to
cut off noses for adultery, or that any other abuse
of women should be tolerated, nor would I want to
see anybody scorned or rejected because they were intersext or
because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
Speaker 3: Etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: But in our society today, these matters are at most
issues of reform. The systems need a trick consists in
having turned powerful rebellious impulses which otherwise might have taken
a revolutionary direction, to the service of these modest reforms.
Speaker 2: Yep. I appreciated the brevity of it. It's not too long.
It outlines an idea which a lot of people might
not be acquainted with, and I think for the most part,
he's for the most part, if you viewed the way
we started this off as if you view this as
a story about something called the system, anthropomorphic or otherwise,
you can easily kind of like an elastic glove just
fitted over whatever you need to and it can be
applicable to the situation. So I think, I don't know,
I actually liked reading this one.
Speaker 4: I thought it was solid.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And after finishing Industrial Society in its Future, where
he really expounds upon a lot of these ideas, to
have him, you know, do just this little five part
essay for lack of a better term, and have so
many of those recognize so many of those ideas how
he brought him over is pretty good. And it's just
so awesome to see that just that boom that just
I was just that boomerism that you that you could
see all throughout like industrial society in his future. How
he just continues that there's always this kind of boomer tendency.
But I honestly think that his boomerism helps in his writing.
Speaker 2: Oh hmm. I think it's uh charming. I think it's
definitely charming, but.
Speaker 1: It helps, it's helpful for normies to understand.
Speaker 2: I guess, man, I guess I mean someone like you
and I anymore.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I like you and I when we were reading,
when we're reading the stuff that we read, you know,
for fun, which other people are just like, you're insane,
like to show.
Speaker 2: I tried to shoot. One time. I was on an
airplane and I was reading Fank Numana and I'm in
the middle of it where half of it is parentheses
and dots, and this guy and this guy on the
in the airplane at the window seat looks over and
he goes, what's your reading? And I'm going, just like poetry?
Speaker 4: Oh man.
Speaker 1: I remember I was like nineteen and somebody was I was.
I was going to apprentice as a carpenter and everything,
and I went in for an interview and the guy
who was interviewing me, I had a book with me
and he he's like, so, what book are you reading?
And I'm like, Essentials of Zen Buddhism. He's like, why
are you here?
Speaker 2: We're we're we're nerd like like we're making it, We're
making it awkward for people.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry that I'm making your day, like making your
turning your day into this. But yeah, this is a
really good book. So what do you what's your take
away from this?
Speaker 4: What do you think?
Speaker 1: Well, what do you think Ted was onto? I mean,
it's two thousand and five, a couple of four years
after nine to eleven, second year in to Iraq, fifth
year into fourth year into Afghanistan TSA, NSA. He's seeing
all of this technology being used against people and everything,
but he's still trying to stay trying to concentrate on
psychology because I think he understands that that's more, you know,
that's how you break through to people. And what do
you think he was doing with this one?
Speaker 2: I think that what you should probably pick up from
the essay. First of all, he gives a great outline.
So right there the outline at the start of the
second part. If you wanted a summary of what we
just read.
Speaker 4: That's it.
Speaker 2: I think the takeaway is this probably serves more as
a framework than it does as a theory. He's more
so describing in two thousand and five something that was happening.
If you weren't in, now you're in, so now you
know what's going on in twenty twenty one. The sketch
looks very much the same because the playbook hasn't changed.
It's probably hasn't aged well, I would say, Pete, but
if you were in two thousand and eight, you'd be going, man,
he was ahead of his time, you know, and appreciating that.
But being like I wish I read this a few
years ago, it seems very much like something that at
the time, in the spirit of anarchist library where we
were reading this from, it seems like something that has
posted very much at the time and has to be
read at the time, digested and incorporated into the way
that you think. But it was evident to me, it's
probably evident to most of the listeners the way that
this works. They've probably seen a lot of their own trends,
co opted, made not rebellious in any sense. I don't know.
I think for me it was. It would have been
good if we had read this in two thousand and six.
But what it's pointing to is a playbook that definitely
hasn't changed since he wrote this.
Speaker 1: The playbook hasn't changed. But if they were going to
use this, say two thousand and six, are using this
as a playbook, and they're like, we're going to keep this,
this is going to be our playbook going full they've
gone completely off the rails with it. I mean they
just have torn it up, and or they haven't even
torn it up. They've decided to turn what he laid
out here into a parody because they've gone so far
beyond what he lays out, which was a reality in
two thousand, in the early two thousands and could be
seen as a reality. I mean, now it's just a
parody of anything that's he's talking about here, because, like
I said, the other thing is they've just gone too far.
Speaker 2: Well, here's the deal. There's also the element of George
Soros inserting culture creators and political candidates into our government
and making them more left and more extreme than the
previous guy that was there, So Ted probably, I don't
know if Ted was in on the fact that there
are outside influences trying to accelerate things to a greater
and I don't use accelerate in the cool way, accelerate
things into a very uncool, chaotic state of like Globo leftism.
I don't think Ted could have known this in two
thousand and five, but there is. This is not the
only thing going on. Okay, the sketch is the sketch.
It is not a metaphysics. It is not the way
everything inside of it works. It's a contained feel. It's
basically a game. It's a sport. There's other sports going
on too, like candidates being selected placed in, disinformation agents
being put throughout the news media. There's a lot of
things going on. That's That's the other thing that needs
to be mentioned. He did not pick up on.
Speaker 1: Well, what's funny is Matt here just put a comment
and it's exactly what I was going to bring up.
I was going to bring up like the World Economic Forum.
I mean, I'm pretty sure that the majority of people
don't know who the World Economic Forum is and know
what they started laying out the first week of June
of last year. But you know, their plans for the
future in I mean, they had plans for the future,
they've had it all along. But when they started saying, okay,
because of the way people are reacting to the COVID,
to this COVID nineteen thing, we can take this further.
You know, you've basically given us you you have a
peace street. We've been looking at this Peach Street issh
of how people have reacted, and oh, okay, cool, we
can run with this now. And yeah, I mean there's
when you start taking into consideration things like the World
Economic Forum, this essay kind of falls apart. You can
only use this essay right now for certain things. I
think you can use it for Antifa. I think you
can use it for even patriot prayer or those groups
that are on the ground. Who are the other ones,
the Proud Boys Jesus of course, it's just a bunch
of dorks.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's practically a department of the government.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yes, pretty much. Well even if it wasn't.
Even if it wasn't, it would still be a department
of the government because it would be doing the government's
bidding at this point.
Speaker 2: Ah, yes, I see, there you go. You just used ten.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly exactly. Of course, what was it? Popular liberty,
says JP Morgan, logos on LGBT Pride parade carrere is
the character of the left.
Speaker 2: Oh sure, yeah, I mean the big banks having the
Pride flag. There are police Pride cars.
Speaker 1: Right in New York and Black Side Mountain here saying,
so many FEDS and that is a product of the Internet.
I mean you can basically people say shit on the
Internet that gets them in trouble. They get a call
from the FEDS, and now they're so scared they're like, okay,
I'll do anything you want. Or they go out and
they protest and they you know, I mean, who's going
to trust any of these people who get arrested for
January sixth if they get out of jail like early.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, no.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Let's be clear about the language too. FEDS doesn't FEDS
basically means people I don't like. Like for me, FEDS
means people I don't like. It means anybody who I go,
I express this opinion and you're going to try take
my livelihood away, or you're gonna try and put me
in jail. That's that's a FED. And there's millions of
the millions, Pete, there's millions of FEDS.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and there are and there are some FEDS, actual Feds.
Speaker 2: Right, happy, did well?
Speaker 1: And it's well, see to me, you're pretty well convinced
that I've I'm pretty well convinced that I've had three
or four FEDS on my show.
Speaker 2: I'm right here, buddy. Why don't you Timeline Earth has
fore coasts my friend.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm only convinced that one is a FED, and
and I just finished a series.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're gonna see it one day. Aaron is gonna
buy on the FED and we're all gonna be like, yeah, fuck,
how did we not pin that one down? Have you
met him yet in person?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: No, okay, yes, I've met him. Yeah, so I met
him in person.
Speaker 2: No, I met Carl.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he's a.
Speaker 1: I haven't met Car in person. So, but yeah, Aaron
turns into a teddy bear when you meet him in person.
Speaker 4: In person, you know, I don't only.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't like that. That creeps me out even more.
Speaker 3: I don't like it.
Speaker 1: You've asked me, if you've asked me if I was
a fed before.
Speaker 2: So no, well, well you already know the answer to
that one.
Speaker 4: Remember the time I handed you my wallet.
Speaker 2: I think you were a little drunk. I don't really
know what the deal was, but you handed me your
whole wallet and then you showed me your ID, your
whole name. I knew, but I think I knew probably
before almost anyone else.
Speaker 1: Did you knew before anyone? You knew before anyone else
what my first name was?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 2: Really?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, Oh god, I forgot what I was getting
to there.
Speaker 1: John is right. If you want to see Pete go
teddy Bear, put a charismatic.
Speaker 4: Dog in front of him.
Speaker 2: Oh, this is this is who I have seen His
dog rampage.
Speaker 1: His dog rampage just turns me in.
Speaker 3: It's anywhere.
Speaker 2: Hell yeah, that's awesome.
Speaker 1: You were saying, you were digress saying you said you
wanted to ask.
Speaker 2: Oh, yes, how does it feel to be dominating my timeline?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 2: For uh three weeks? Four weeks straight? How does that feel? Genuine?
Speaker 4: What do you mean?
Speaker 2: You are every You're all over it. The subjects of
conversation that you have started is there's wars going on
over this this stuff? How does this feel? Just from
on a personal level.
Speaker 4: I've gotten to you.
Speaker 1: Remember remember when I used to Remember when I used
to put out stuff just to start ship, dude.
Speaker 2: Just the reason why I'm asking this question is because,
unlike many other people I I we were hanging out
in a bar in Manhattan when you had started a
podcast maybe three months beforehand, and nobody knew who you were,
and certainly nobody would start coming up with names. The
Quinoniates is my absolute favorite thing I've ever seen. You
have a fan base name made by your enemies. The
Quinoniates is what they call your your fans.
Speaker 1: It's the reason this hat exists is because one of
my enemies drew it as a pejorative and then Top
and then top Lobster jumped in and was like, hold on,
wait a minute.
Speaker 2: A legend, by the way, Top Lobster true legends.
Speaker 1: One of the one of the greatest people you will
ever meet.
Speaker 2: Stud for sure, I can't wait to meet. I hope
becomes a Childerberg. I hope everybody comes to Childerberg. This
has to be the year we all got to come out.
Speaker 1: Well, here's what I hope. I hope that what is
being discussed and what is being argued. I hope it's important.
Speaker 4: I hope.
Speaker 3: How does it feel?
Speaker 4: That is, how does it feel?
Speaker 2: How does it feel? First before what do you hope?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean how does it feel? It's yeah, I'm
not someone who likes to be hated, not particularly, you know,
so it's like, you know, I mean, it was like
I was talking when I was talking with LB, I
was saying, you know, it's like, I mean, I was
one of the most loved people out there.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: He's like, yeah, you were the an Cap guy and
everything like that. You know, you're like the king, you know,
the King of the an Caps and everything like that.
And now you're like this apostate, you know, who's you know,
just asking these questions it shouldn't be asked. And you know,
Stefan Consella texts me today and it's like a freaking essay,
you know, you know.
Speaker 2: And privilege and a nightmare at the same time.
Speaker 1: But I mean it's look, how does it feel? It
feels good because I think that it's causing discussions to
be had that weren't before.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm yeah, which, yeah, for sure. It was a
way to penetrate the dialogue about a transcendental principle nap
that being that more, it was a way to get
into that and go, hey, why do we accept this
transcendental principle? You know me, I was like in the background,
I was trying to go I was trying to go, hey,
what a transcendental principle? Hey, what else can we consider?
I was trying to do stuff in the background based
off of that. But it was certainly the most I
remember when we got in with postmodernism. There was a
period of time when everyone in this community was very
curious about postmodernism, and we I think, first of all,
I think we were at the forefront of it. I
think Daddeus Russell was obviously the forefront of doing it generally.
But there was a wave. There's a wave that happened
and we got in there, and that was interesting, and
that was kind of like a people are talking about postmodernism,
and now it's kind of like a you, Pete are
talking about this subject. It's really it's been weird. It's
also been weird again that people call you a Nazi
and other weird things, because again I met you and
nobody knew who you were, and it's just weird to
see in a very short period of time. The people
who have never met you are like, oh, oh, the
worst guy ever. This guy, it's like you. They blame
you for things that happened four years before you you
like popped up into like the primary spot. It's just
it's weird.
Speaker 1: And I'm just like someone who likes to get drunk
and sit at the end of the table and like
eat meatballs and sausage.
Speaker 2: And we were at we were at a house party,
and I believe what we did the entire three hours
of the occasion was sit at the end of a
buffet table and crowd the rib tray. It was really introverted.
It was like a co We were like college students.
Speaker 1: Yes, people walk by, hey Pete, Hey, hey, you doing
NICHOLASTI walks by, hey Pete.
Speaker 4: I'm like, hey, how you doing? Nice jacket?
Speaker 3: Great?
Speaker 2: Did we say nice jacket to him?
Speaker 3: Oh? No?
Speaker 2: I feel like when it got when it got dark,
I forget what it was either me or you. Somebody said,
do you think he's worn that one before?
Speaker 3: That was y yeah? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Oh man, all right, well let's get out of here.
We're over an hour and a half, so thanks for
coming back. On and next time, maybe we'll talk about
somebody whose name actually got mentioned tonight.
Speaker 2: Maybe we'll do that. Maybe we will do that.
Speaker 1: Oh you want to give plugs about your what you
do and all that?
Speaker 3: U t l E.
Speaker 2: Timeline Earth podcast That is Pete's favorite crypto zoology and
comedy podcast. By the way, that's pete favorite. So check
it out.
Speaker 4: Uh, I never I've never missed an episode, dude.
Speaker 2: It's great, legendary. You can find it on any podcast place.
You can find me a t l. E. Bird Archiss.
You don't have to follow who cares about that? Just
listen to the podcast.
Speaker 1: Go follow a car.
Speaker 2: Don't don't do that.
Speaker 4: Go follow Aaron.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you can find what his account is. We
have one co host who's locked, we have one cost
me who's stalled at just under six thousand followers for
months now months, and then we have Aaron who can't
keep an account for more than two weeks to get
banned every time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, oh, I retweet him trying to get him banned.
All right, brother, take care.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 3: I think that I like to fuck up. You're going
to terms on purpose because that triggers them even more so,
Like I'll call Italian spicks and stuff like that, just
just they think I'm down, so put over, Well, why
don't you go to back to coast of Mexo Rica,
you fucking wop? I was like that.
Speaker 1: I was like eight years old when I found out
that what met without papers?
Speaker 3: Uh yeah, I like that.
Speaker 1: Well, you know what's funny is uncle Ted wouldn't like
any of these, like any of this language, because he's
just your typical boomer.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so he's like, uh, uncle Ted was not PC. No,
he wasn't either. It was neither a PC or anti PC.
He was like, grow up. The guy had i Q
one hundred and sixty seven. Yeah, slantedly so in mathematics
like that, just that would drive anyone nuts. That'd be
like if you or I walked around the world but
we were perpetually stuck in fourth grade but we had
an adult brain, but everyone else was still nine?
Speaker 1: You know, isn't that That isn't the watten Well starting.
Speaker 3: To feel like that anywhere? Uncle Ted's got like twenty
points on me. I still probably got points on others.
I can't imagine having I can't imagine being that.
Speaker 1: Guy, Like I mean, Normy conversations now are just.
Speaker 3: Dude, I do.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's like, come on.
Speaker 3: I brought you tell you something before we get going quick,
like a reverse culture shocking. So in Japan I don't
have Well, first of all, they don't dare it. They're
just quiet and trains and stuff. But like in a
cafe or something, they'll be talking to each other, but
at a volume where you'd have to try to listen
if you want to listen. And because it's in a
second language, I have to like care to hear it, right,
But in America people are just loud everywhere and it's English,
so I just I have to know what they're saying.
There's no avoiding it, you know. And uh the gap, man,
It's like the stuff people in America talk about was
just so vacid and stupidly like chroscopes and just you know,
the dumbest shit. I'm like, how long can somebody talk
about TV movies or whatever? Like what help? There's no
like real discussion about anything, And I just felt trapped me.
I couldn't get out of there quick enough. Just being
at the airport hearing idiots talk to each other be crazy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well I think you know, I go out to
at least a restaurant at least once a week here,
and it's yeah loud, and people are really proud of
the fact of what they're talking about, even if it
I mean, if you're talking about family.
Speaker 3: Everyone can repeat the news. Yeah yeah, yeah, if you
I'll tell you what I think you think I heard
ten minutes ago.
Speaker 1: Well, if they're talking about family, that's one hundred percent,
you know, probably the most important thing on the planet.
But when they start getting it, I mean, I mean, okay,
I can sit and talk about sports, but I just
don't do it because it's just we're so far beyond
that at this point. If people still want I mean,
I still have friends and people that I respect who
watch sports as a you know, as an outlet of
something or just as tradition. You know, I live in
a freaking college town with a SEC football you know,
and so it's.
Speaker 3: Oh, I know, I know how it is. You're not
going to get a heated like like standing up pointing
fingers at each other road really like we're in the
break of uclear war. I don't give this ship who
won the sportsball game anymore? Like I don't know so,
but you know it is yeah, when you.
Speaker 1: Now, let's bring this all the way to our uncle.
I mean, this is exactly what he was writing. This
is exactly what he was writing about.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean that's why people watch my show say
anti garbage.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean that's why.
Speaker 3: I mean, like, look at the Ukraine covers. There's like
maybe twenty of us given accurate news. Yeah you know
like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean you can't even even people that I
that I pretty much agree with on a lot of things,
like you know, like freaking Hoppians Hoppians with Ukraine flags
in there. I mean, I really don't want to get
into Ukraine because the the ideas I have for what's
going actually going on there are we'll get us taken
down off a lot of platforms.
Speaker 3: But yeah, it's just oh yeah, so how much to
have to self censor what? Oh?
Speaker 1: I mean this isn't going to go Yeah, this isn't
going to go on YouTube.
Speaker 5: I mean you know, I was like I was just
anything I say, not even high I'm Ryan Dawson, Like
I wouldn't even put that on. Yeah, we'll be there. Well,
the thing you want to keep, Well, the thing is
is that you know, if we're going to talk about Ukraine.
It's going to be everything is going You're going to
be ringing that bell every five seconds.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I know, it's just like a fire alarm.
Yeah well, I mean that's my you. I don't know
if you've seen my subjects about it, but I right
early on, I was like, let's name them all. Here's
all the governors, here's the Prime minister, here's the president,
here's all the guys. They're all Jews, Like, just that's
why we're there. It's not in American interests. Just like
a rock, this is not in our national interests. This
is in their interest.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, you know, it has more resources than
Palestine does, so maybe just maybe.
Speaker 3: Well they have a huge human trafficking ring there for
three decades.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I know, you know, and you feel bad.
Speaker 3: It was hilarious because I was watching the Duran and
they're they're very accurate on just like this is this
is happening on the battlefield, and this is this happening,
and but somebody with some guesses on there like what
you know, but but why why are we so anti
Russia and pro Ukraine? Like what do we get out
of it? Oh? Like, wave, what did Pruden do to
piss them off? I wonder what did he actually do
now I get accused of who did he actually jail
and throw out of the country? Was at eskimos nos Materians? No,
there's even a lot of people.
Speaker 1: There's even a lot of people questioning that whether Putin,
whether Putin is being controlled by the tribe as well.
Speaker 3: I know there's that's the Adam of green retards and
stuff like, oh yeah, he's controlled by the tribe. That's
why he helped build a nuclear program and ran defended
Syria and rested Jewish billionaires and put in prison because
he's so zogged, like yeah, but he's got a picture
with howbad? Like so there's a picture of Abamba and
Gaddafi too, How that go? Rum felt in Saddam too?
How'd that go?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Those that one?
Speaker 1: What was it from Tito's funeral where you have Saddam
and Rumsfelder just like walking down the street, just talking,
having a conversation. And they've scrubbed that from the internet
and that video.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, that's before Rummy was the head of the deity,
but the deity at that time, I can't remember.
Speaker 1: I can't find that video it's been like seven years
since I was doing all my Yugoslavia research.
Speaker 3: That one where the real famous one where Rumsfeld shaking
his hand. You can see Farland in the back left.
It wasn't just Rommy. I mean, they're all it's been
this way since they killed Kennedy. But like that's such
a big pill to swallow for people who haven't been initiated.
It can't can't like start off with that. You say
something like that, they just roll their eyes, okay, yeah.
Speaker 2: Or you know, the.
Speaker 1: The rampant you know how.
Speaker 4: I think it was Jeremy R. Hammond.
Speaker 1: I think said he said that you don't even really
need like APEC doesn't even need to exist in this
country because of Christianity, because of Protestant Christianity and their
obsession they're Christian Zionism. Thank you thanks to Samuel Samuel
Intermeyer Ding Publishing the helping to publish a Schofield Bible,
which isn't that.
Speaker 3: Bell one of the best concepts I ever did.
Speaker 4: That's so good, Like.
Speaker 3: You can't clip me saying jew and you can't prove
the bell to do. I'm like, whoa, hey, I didn't
notice that pattern you did. I was just saying it's
a merchant bell, what are you talking about? Cool? It's
just like the guy that goes up to somebody he says,
what's your least favorite race? And the one was like
are we talking about people? I learn you're skinning is.
I can't believe you took it in that direction. I
was saying, like box and Marathon, or like, oh man,
so this is not to get in.
Speaker 1: This is not to be a political revolution. It's object
will be to overthrow not governments, but the economic and
technological basis of the president society.
Speaker 3: Yep, that's an opening paragraph. Yeah, he's right because you
can't fid little, you can't feel the fuck around with
the types of government whatever, top down, because you can't
change that until you change the base anyway. But yeah,
he I think, And it's really he's a child prodigy, right,
and so they're like, oh, how can we use this
genius math kid for ourselves? Never asked him what he
wanted to do or personal autonomy, just like, oh, we
have an opportunity here. This kid's weird at math, let's
use them for the system. Disgusting. I'm kind of in
that situation. My middle child is like super smart and
math and and I'm like, just let him have a
very easy a and all those math guys they want
to advance them and all I'm like, why you do
a lot of computers anyway? Chill? Yeah.
Speaker 1: Or they just look everything as a resource. I mean,
there's a reason why HR why it's called HR human resources.
Everything every they're looking for humans to resource, and once
they get them, they use them up and throw them away.
Speaker 3: All right. They can't sustain this technological system without having
all these people specializing in different disciplines, and they don't
stop and ask or reflect on how this has affected
us on macro level psychology psychologically. Well, let's let's go ahead,
and so we'll start it off.
Speaker 1: We'll get in all that, so let's ask questions. So
you know, when we get to part six of the Manifesto,
it's called the psychology of modern Leftism. Do you do
you believe that the reason why he just completely annihilated
uses the next what I think thirty one sections to
annihilate the left is because he would see them as
they're his natural ally in the fight that he you
know that he's proposing, But of course, because they're so
caught up in stuff. That's you know, it's twenty twenty
two and I have to post on Twitter that slavery
is wrong.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that you have to say all slavery
was wrong, not just the American South in the eighteen fifties,
like the slaves we have in Livia, the slats shop
labor in China. The current slavery right, but it's not wrong.
They they don't really think it's wrong. They're like kicking
a dead horse. They love wearing the crown and doing
a victory dance for the problems of yesteryear so that
they don't have to face what's going on now. So
he started that in Ted. That's in Ted's writing too,
a different writing than the that's in the System's Neatest trick.
You're just like, hooray me, I don't hate Kay's. They're like, well,
just the whole culture agrees.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I've actually read I've actually read that whole
thing on an episode and you know, basically show how
you know, in two thousand and five, he's saying, here's
what ends TIFA is going to do. This is how
the system is going to use. Then this is how
the system is going to use you know, how he
predicted the twenty twenty riots and everything, and basically everything
that's happening right now.
Speaker 3: Is even calls in like social justice and all that
in the manifesto he wrote thirty five years ago.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, but you know, but hey, hey, all this
is is him copying al Gore's book from nineteen ninety two.
You know that, right, because because Stoner, Yeah, because you
know he picked them because rush Limbaugh cherry picked a
bunch of a couple of lines from this and a
couple of lines from al Gore's book to show how
al Gore is no different than the unibomber. That's like
everybody called you know, everybody's Hitler nowadays. So you know,
rush Limbaugh is to say, anybody who has any environmental
concerns is you know, is obviously and I mean we
know al Gore is a piece of shit.
Speaker 3: But al Gord the thing is he doesn't actually have
the environmental vehicles.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I mean clearly in that book when you
look at that book. In the first in Al's book,
the first chapter, he says, the two great the two
greatest organizations that will that can be used to fight
are the American Left and the American military. Yeah wow,
I'm okay, So okay, the American military, which is the
biggest polluter on the planet.
Speaker 3: In the American left too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so it's like okay, so yeah, that's exactly exactly
what you know Ted was talking about.
Speaker 3: Like the lefts against nuclear power. Why well, it has
this fancy science word in it. That's why they're so
anti science. And they're always like saying they're the Party
of Science, and like, you don't know how many genders
there are, right, you don't know how energy works? You
think electric car electricity just comes from what mad or something.
I don't use gas, I plug it in, Like, where's
the power coming from? From the wall? Yeah, where did
that come from? Using coal? Exactly?
Speaker 1: You ever see that, like the oil leaks of the
of the the wind from the wind farms, from the
freaking thing, the freaking windmills and every those windmills leaking
oil everywhere you should get.
Speaker 3: You can free to replay this as an interview I
did with Carl Zen injuries and economists, and we just
ripped on the bullshit of green energy, and then we
got into thorium, Like the nuclear power we ought to use,
we don't because you can't build a bomb out of it.
Speaker 1: Yep, sal thorium, yep. So all right, all right, so
he says, and this is one of the most interesting
things is when he jumps right in and he says,
you know, we have what exactly is a leftist.
Speaker 3: We don't.
Speaker 1: It's not even clear what you can call a leftist.
And he says, when we speak of leftists and this article,
we have in mind mainly socialist, collectivists, political correct types, feminists,
gay and disability activists, animal activist, animal.
Speaker 3: Rights psychological type.
Speaker 1: Yes, right, yes, this is the kind of people who
put on a pussy hat and march, you know, you know,
would march against fascism and against you know that Trump
is going to destroy the environment. When they just flew
there on private planes.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a selective outrage of whatever this system has
already approved. So it's like, oh, I get a pat
on the head if I voice these opinions which have
already been settled. And so they're out there again. They're
fighting the problems of yesteryear, like you'll never completely stamp
out every vestige of racism or whatever. I have a
friend like that. It's just like mad at neo Nazis online.
I thought, Wow, that's you got real problems. People are
mean on the internet. Oh my, and like which institution,
which university, which state, which corporation, Which any of them
are white supremacists? Besides the Nazis in Ukraine like none,
they're all vehemently opposed to it. Like everybody agrees on this.
The Nazis are gone, and so they just spend all
their time doing that, like I'm saying the approved thing.
But Ted gets way deeper than just oh their vertasingly.
He really nails it well.
Speaker 1: He says the two psychological tendencies that under underlie modern
leftism we call feelings of inferiority and over socialization.
Speaker 3: Nailed it, And I remember reading that in high school
and thinking, this is what I've been trying to. Like,
I knew the feelings of inferiority part. You could notice
that right away, right with a lot of these people.
But you don't care about any of these marginalized groups.
And it's almost always on behalf of another. You notice
that they don't even belong to the group that it's
allegedly being oppressed. It's more of like they in their
mind have categories of superiority and inferiority. But they don't
like that concept because a loser hates the idea of
superior and inferior. But they still see certain groups as inferior,
and so they feel, like Paul, they have to level
of all these up. It's something lesser than now type
of thing.
Speaker 4: It's something I wrote the other day.
Speaker 3: It's you.
Speaker 1: I was talking about basically the war on white people
and the war on whiteness in the United States, and
I said, and I can't even say it's a war
on white people. I have to say it's a war
on white men because so many white women are the
ones leading the war.
Speaker 3: Well, it's a war unperceived superiority. And it's not the
white men walking around saying they're superior. It's the perceptions
of the ones that are flipping out. They hate and
Ted talks about us time period. They hate whiteness because
they see it as superior. They I'm not saying it is,
they think it is. They don't like Christianity because that's
the dominant religion, and they want anything that's not normative.
You know, they interpret any any language at all as
being against gagementorities, et cetera. Because they feel their inferior.
They hate rationality, they hate reason, they favor cultural relativism,
they favor all the inferior positions, and these are all
inferior in their own head, right. They don't like science,
real science, you know. Oh no, it's just what we
identify and you can just whatever. They hate all that
stuff because they feel like they hate capitalism and they
hate anything that's considered better and normative.
Speaker 1: Talking about how they don't even aren't even upset about
themselves is He says. Those who are most sensitive about
politically incorrect terminology are not the average black ghetto dwell
or Asian immigrant, abused woman, or disabled person, but a
minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong
to any oppressed group, but come from the privileged strata
of society. It's something that my friend Ziman says. He says,
the average, this the average kind of person that he's
talking about right here, lives a more white supremacist life
than the average you know, the a person who would
actually call themselves a white percent it's white.
Speaker 3: It's the Marsive Vineyard people, you know. It's I pointed
that out back when about the the pipeline that went
through Native American land. Almost no Native Americans were protesting
or saying anything. It was all like white liberals on
their behalf saying not to put a pipeline there, and
a lot of the Indians are like, no, he would,
we want a pipeline that's money like what you need? Know, No,
it'll tear up what the grass whatever. It's always on
behalf of another though you'll see this too. The most rapid,
the most like avid environmentalists are live in urban centers
of every modern convenience there is. But they want to
tell other people how they have to live and how
land should be preserved, you know, somewhere else where they
don't live and boss other people around. And it's also
it's just like a a do good or theme by
which people can exercise their control freak mentality. And you
get always like, well, I'm doing I'm not doing this
because I'm a control freak. I'm doing it on behalf
of the environment, or to fight racism or some other ill.
Speaker 1: But it's that you know you're not right. Well, it's
also what he says here. Many leftists have an in
sense identification with the problems of groups that have an
image of being weak, women, defeated, American Indians, repellent homosexuals,
and other and other inferior. The leftists themselves feel that
these groups are inferior. They by championing these groups, they
clearly say. Remember when I guess this was twenty seventeen
or twenty eighteen, we who wrote it was Salon or
it might have been Mother Jones wrote an article saying
that black African Americans were more susceptible to Russian propaganda
than anyone else.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean a better example is when they went
around asking white liberal college kids about voter ID and
they thought, yeah, vote id's racist because you know, blacks
and Hispanics don't know how to get a driver's license
or have a computer.
Speaker 1: And then somebody I can't remember who it was, went
into like Harlem and said, if you needed to get
an idea to vote, where would you go? And they're like, oh,
the driver's license, bure right, that's right down there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I know. I mean, obviously, people divorced from reality
just think of minorities like their children, you know, perpetual children.
They're so infantilizing and they look down on them. And yeah,
I hear this all the time, and people who don't
think they're racists usually are. They're like, oh, but I
have lots of filling the blank friends like yeah, because
that makes you feel good about yourself.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And then I know I know people who are
like yeah, I mean I know that I possess racism.
And those are usually the people who are just like
we there when it comes down to it, they're not
saying that, you know, they're saying they just don't want
to live around certain people. They're not saying I don't.
I mean, some may be saying that they're inferior or whatever,
but it's really just.
Speaker 3: Well if you if you no one wants to try
on that a little bit. If you ask a couple
of questions, you find out it's not really a belief
in genetic supremacy or anything. It's just people are certain
subcultures over others, and they have a loud television and
other things to give a prescription, uh to like this
is this is black culture, This is this culture, this
is that culture, and it's not it's just all Hollywood garbage. Yeah, well,
there's no there's no way all blacks are supposed to
think like this. And they're supposed to talk like this,
like what are you talking about? Dog? That's so stupid,
But they every every Pundit's like the black community. I'm like, really, well,
they all get together and agree on something. What are
you talking about?
Speaker 1: It's like that South that South Park episode when Randy says,
nigger on what is will of fortune? And then he's
like that.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 1: Stand Stan goes to Token and says, well, my brother,
you know my father apologized to Jesse Jackson. He's like,
Jesse Jackson is not the pope of black People's said,
all right, So feminists are desperately anxious to prove that
women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly,
they are nagged by a fear that women may not
be as strong and as capable as men.
Speaker 3: Obvious obviously. And I feel that you could apply that
to any kind of militantly anti racist person, Like if
I went up to you out of the blue and
just started I did a video of this. I just
started talking about how I have lots of friends who
are left handed, and you know, left handed people can
do whatever right handed people can do. Like it doesn't
even need an argument. You're like, yeah, sure of course, right, Like,
what are you doing, Like if I feel some urgent
need to prove that left handed people can do whatever,
you know, or you know from the other side, that
right handed people can do and there's it's just like yeah,
no shit, you know, so why do you feel they
need to do that? Say, well, we're women can be
doctors or something. Yeah, I know, like, okay, this has
been resolved a long time ago. But they feel this nagging,
persistent itch because they don't really believe that sexes or whatever,
race or whatever is equal, and so they are held
on trying to prove it and get everybody to swell
their dog go and preach it all the time and
reinforced this idea that they don't really believe. Well, who
else would do that, right, Like ask any minority like that.
Someone's like just brings up race out of the blue.
They're like, oh god, another liberal, you know, because the
normal people don't do that, right, I've played sports with
all whites, blacks or whatever. It doesn't I don't remember
that conversation ever happening. Right when you get around liberals there,
it's just it's the first thing. It's always it's like
their background program. It thinks about race all day. And
I also feel like someone that's got nothing going in
their life, Like they're unattractive, they're physically weak, they're mentally stupid.
There you go down the list. They have no skills,
no creativity, no nothing. So what they find comfort in
is a moral superiority because you don't even have to
do anything, you just have to not do stuff. It's
very easy, just you know, don't be prejudiced, don't be this.
And they walk around like that's their their armor and
their shield because they feel bad about themselves an inferior
right objectively on everything else. So they're like, yeah, well,
at least I'm not racis Like, guess what practically nobody is.
You know, it's nothing to take a lot of pride in.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's just this picture of the leftists just being
weak and just being weak minded, weak willed, weak basically.
Speaker 3: And yeah, look at antife, all decrepit and fucked up.
Look you can just look at them and go, yeah,
you're a bunch of pussies.
Speaker 1: And even sed says leftists tend to hate anything that
has an image of being strong, good and successful. They
hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males,
they hate rationality. The reasons they get the leftist give
for hating the West, et cetera, clearly do not correspond
with their real motives. They said they hate the West
because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric, and so forth.
But where these same faults appear in socialist countries are
in primitive culture, as the left find excuses for them.
The best, one of the best ones I heard was.
Speaker 3: We'll grudgingly admitted, but they're enthusiastic about it when it's
the US.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, exactly. But one of my favorites on Twitter,
this was a few years ago. We were posting up
Marx quotes, you know, where he refers to certain people
as like that Jewish nigger and.
Speaker 4: Stuff like that, and.
Speaker 1: Some Marxist goes, well, he was just a man of
his time, and I'm like it, well, so is Thomas Jefferson.
Speaker 3: Then, oh, I know, they always love this shit on
these great figures from you know, hundreds of years ago,
were like, yeah, well that person, that person didn't like
blacks or gays, whoever, Oh, I'm better than them. Like, dude,
if you lived back then, you would have followed everything
like anybody now has got, you know, five jabs and
wearing a mask in a Ukraine flag and just doing
the next thing. You would have been the Nazi, You
would have been the slaveholder. You would have fallen for
all of it, because you have fallen for it now.
Jefferson was way ahead of his time. He ended the
transatlantic slave trade. He also prevented it from expanding west.
And he tried to out loll slavery in the state
of Virginia when he was governed. He only lost by
a couple of votes. He was trying to think of
a realistic way to phase it out, like and he
inherited slaves. Let's I'm not going to get along Jefferson rant.
But the thing is, you could say that about whatever,
like Socrates, great man, great philosopher, Like, yeah, but he
liked little boys. Einstein, brilliant sign. He was in love
with his cousin. They didn't know better at the time.
You're buying the fault Martin Luther King, great man who's
plagiariss and fooled around on his wife. Whatever. It's like, Oh,
you just gotta find something to ship on these people
about to make yourself feel better about yourself. No one's
saying that you're Jesus or something, just like, look, this
is an outstanding historical figure that changed the course of
our lives. Jefferson wrote the Constitution and most of the
Bills of Rights. Like, the guy did accomplish a lot
of good. He's definitely in that positive like y'all. But
he had slaves like everybody else at that time period. Yeah,
and thousands for thousands of years. So he says, modern
Lefstische philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality. Well
science unless it's of course, you know, has to do
with transgenderism, or you know, it has to be iological,
so the jab things like that. That's when, well, that's
totally a rejection of science because they're what they're saying
is science is not empirical or objective. It's just a
word to use to throw on their identity politics. It's
very opposite of science, Like that's not that's not science
to say biology has thirty seven genders or seventy two
whatever up number they're at. Now, it's identity. You either
have a piece or vagina, the spy modal, that's that's
that's actual science. They're like, nah, the science is science
has just become political nowatives they vote, and that is
like the endpoint of maximum cultural relativism, where science doesn't
mean empiricism anymore. Science is just like whatever you feel,
whatever makes money or whatever is you know, politically advantageous
at the time. You know, for the words science behind it.
It's ridiculous men having babies and stuff. I come on,
it's not science.
Speaker 1: Ted brings up IQ tests and he says leftists or
antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because
such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior inferior
to others. They prefer to give society the credit or
blame for an individual's ability or lack thereof. Thus, if
a person is inferior, it is not his fault, but
society's because and this goes to you know, if you've
ever read Paul Gottfree's therapeutic talk about he talks about
the therapeutic society, how basically we're at the point that
if somebody is if somebody believes that Trump didn't that
if somebody believes that Trump actually won in twenty twenty
and that there was foul play, then there's something actually
wrong with that person, and that person needs to be
dealt with. I mean, that's why I'm That's why I'm
not on YouTube right now. Not because I covered Nazi
book burnings, not because I've questioned World War the World
War two narrative. I'm not on YouTube right now because
I questioned the twenty twenty election results.
Speaker 3: But you could question twenty sixteen all day, every day. Sure,
And that's when I steal dossie. It gave him a
million dollars to lie about it. You know, look what
there was some kook stuff about the twenty twenty that people.
They did the same thing with nine to eleven, Like
they go into bunk the kook stuff and go see,
but there's some non kook stuff. You don't have to
get into voting machines, flipping both or any of that mess.
Like the fact that all these social media companies censored
the Hunter Biden laptop story and covered for all of
Biden's crimes, refused to do a debate on foreign policy,
like all that the media was completely skewed against Trump,
and that's already rigging an election. Yeah, and you can
keep outing stuff, but you don't need to like, you've
already got a concrete slam dunk thing right there. Just
stop to deal with that first before you start adding
all the extra stuff that may have happened in Arizona
or whatever, Like who cares? Like, did they or did
they not sense of these stories? They definitely did, and
they were true. They were not Russian propaganda. And Biden
lied about everything, so did Harris. They lied about the
Proud Boys and all that. They spend more time in
the debates talking about prowdboys than our entire foreign policy.
It was such a circus. But anyway, yeah, you're right,
Like they're going to say, there's something mentally wrong with
you if you don't have the state opinion, right, you
don't have just proud opinion is the election was completely fair,
No cheating happened, and you're not even allowed to give
an example. And there's no dialogue to tell you why
you're wrong. If you're wrong, it's just nope, you were
You're wrong, and you're actually you know, you're mentally deficient
for even entertaining these ideas. Well.
Speaker 1: Not only that you're not only mentally deficient, you're immoral.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I always add that one I would add too,
like to the DNA thing TED is talking about. Why
they have the position they have is based on this
psychological feelings of inferiority. It may be the case or
it may not be the case that you can explain
differences or whatever, but on the combination of social and
genetic whatever, But that doesn't matter, Like, it doesn't matter
even if they were right there only take that position
because the idea that somebody is just genetically better than
someone else doesn't fit their worldview and they cannot psychologically
digest that as a conclusion. Doesn't mean that conclusion is true.
It could be, it could not be, but they would
never accept that. And this is this thing, they will
not even look at it, Like if you were going
I doubt genetic researchers could ever even pursue figuring out
whether or not that's true, because it's political suicide. So
even if it was true, you'd never be allowed to
say it. You'd be thrown out of your university even like, no,
that is no an acceptable conclusion, we've already decided without
even looking at the data. Data might show that, yeah,
it isn't, but they don't even look at the data
or even gather the data because they decided based on
psychological reas and it's like, no, this cannot be. We
cannot allow this. I mean, people are better than others.
Speaker 1: Let's get into this, because this starts getting into over socialization, says.
Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion
or by moral principles, and moral principle, and moral principle
does play a role for the leftist of the over
socialized type, but compassion and moral principle cannot be the
main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a
component of leftist behavior, so is the drive for power. Moreover,
much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be a
benefit to the people whom the leftists claimed to be
trying to.
Speaker 3: Yes, right, that's it, Yeah, that's so good. And like
you can give examples like affirmative action or welfare whatever,
all these do gooder facades. They say, Okay, when someone
points out the other side, it says, well, affirmative action
undermines someone's credibility because other people are going to know
that said category got a job, got into college, got whatever,
because they're only the best within their parameters and not
versus the whole. And so when somebody, a brown woman,
wheelchair or wherever, get some position, you don't know if
she would have earned that anyway, or if she got
it because she had all the right checkboxes. And it's
quite obvious that most of the time it's because they
had all the right checkboxes, which undermines it for all
the ones who are qualified. And so you can you
get all these different arguments against affirmative action, and you
can just show how long we had it. It's not
working at all. Same thing with welfare. Welfare hurts the poor.
You can give all the libertarian arguments that they don't care.
They don't care if it works or not. It's like
Thomas Soul said, they want what looks good, not what works.
And it just seems like, hey, give poor people money.
Like if that worked, there wouldn't be four people. It
was so easy to solve poverty by just saying, well,
let's just give them all money. They can solve the dash.
Just qunt a bunch of money and hand it to everybody.
There you go, it doesn't work, they think, and they
go like, oh, I'm for a frontive action, because if
I'm not, then I'm a racist. But don't. If you
reform fromtive action, you're racist because you're saying this group
gets to favor over this other group based on race.
That is an act of racism. That doesn't matter to them.
They're like, nah, because the group I'm shitting on is
the group you know, like whites for example in the
United States, is the one I don't like. So then
it's okay.
Speaker 1: And here's the point he makes about affirmative action. Here
is I think very important. He says, leftists believe they're trying,
they're helping people, but they're not. If one believes that
affirmative action is good for black people, doesn't make sense
to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms. Obviously,
it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and
conciliatory approach that would make it least verbal and symbolic
concessions to white people who think that avermative action discriminates
against them against them. But leftist activists do not take
such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.
Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race
problems serve as an excuse for them to express their
own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so,
they actually harm black people because the activist hostile attitude
towards the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.
Speaker 3: Yep, he nailed it, and he can see it a
hypocrisy because somebody who's completely not a racist will bring
up the points I just made and more, and they're
never addressed. It's always shut up racist, agree with me,
or you're a Nazi. That's your favorite way, yelling Nazi
at everybody. I'm not sure how they're going to handle
Kanye West.
Speaker 1: I mean, you just they just ignore. They ignore his
skin color because skin color doesn't really matter to them.
It's it's that whole friend enemy distinction. It's whoever, if
you're not their friend, you're their enemy, and it doesn't
matter what the skin color or anything. But the next
line is one of the most important, I think in
the whole manifesto. He says, if our society had no
social problems at all, the leftists would have to invent
problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for
making a fuss. And I think it's so like that
transgenders right there. Yeah, I think it's so kind of
cute that he uses the term making a fuss. It's
just so boomer.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well you know it was. He was from a
different error. Man, They make a fuss, but they are
making a fuss about. They would just invent things bitch about,
and they have. I mean, as homosexuality became pretty much acceptable,
marriage is legal, all that, they Okay, we're just going
to invent a new thing and complain about it. And
that's transgenders it And I'm not comparing that to gaze
at all. I think gayser gay whatever. Transgenders is completely
made up bullshit to say, oh, I'm a man and
you're not. And you can't just change biology biology based
on wishing or whatever. It doesn't work like that. But
they it's ingrained. They need that sense of that power
process and so this is their vehicle and they're too
they're two pussy fied or whatever. It had just come
out directly with it. So it's always on behalf of
another and it's usually for the environment or for some
lesser than that group. And they're not really lesser than now,
but you know from their point of view who they
are that they are, you know, just exercising control over
other people. They'll do that with their language policing and
pronoun policing and all that. It's funny. I think it was.
I don't really like this guy for a lot of things.
But Steve Crowder did this. He like dressed up like
a leftist and was just riding around the car with
him these people. He's a university students, so it's like
the worst of the worst. But they could not have
a conversation because all of them were language policing each
other so much that like, you couldn't even talk. I'm
offended by this one. You just said, blah, I don't
think that's good for selling. So let's say none of
these groups are even in the car. It was amazing,
like they could barely talk to each other. It took
There was the one with that woman's speech that she had,
you know, like the whole Mark Anthony thing, Friends, Romans,
country or whatever. Now it's like you would have to
go through a list of you know, eighty different categories
to address the audience before you can start on your speech.
And somebody, I think it was into Austria or something,
he went in and said, excuse to ladies, gentlemen, this
this this this, this, and like he ran out of time,
but he's like, I haven't even finished my introduction. But
that was the point. Like, what are they doing with
all these categories? Level leve control? For sure?
Speaker 4: Well here we go, okay.
Speaker 1: So psychologists use the term socialization to designate the process
by which children are trained to think and act as
society demands. The moral code of our society is so
demanding that no one can think, feel, and act in
a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed
to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates someone at some
time or other, whether he thinks it to himself or not.
Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel,
and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In
order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to
deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations
for feelings and actions that in reality have a non
moral origin. We use the term over socialized, over socialized
to describe such people.
Speaker 3: And those are the people that will ascribe moral motivations
for things they just want to do anyway or don't
want to do anyway. So like, well, I don't know,
vegetarians They don't eat meat because they don't like how
it tastes, but they just make it. Oh, because I
care about animals and blabable. I could say I don't
use cosmetic products because I'm a guy, but I could say, well,
I just don't like animal testing shampoo and rabbit's eyeballs,
and that's not why, because I just don't don't like them.
A lot of people will adopt some sort of behavior
or whatever where they're abstained from a certain thing. I
love the best are the people that I don't eat
meat except for chicken and fish, like, oh, because it
does taste good. Right, It's like, you can't what's the
sympathy for the none for the chicken and then the turkey,
But okay, but you don't like the way pig and
calt so you don't eat it. But you're acting like, oh,
you have sympathy for these cows. No, you don't. They
just it's a way. It's like, oh, it's a way
of relieving guilt from something else. Right, Well, I'm doing
this and a lot of it, and it's they left us.
They eat each other because like a lot of hardcore
leftists are white women, and they are very susceptible to
this over socialization part too. But they feel a collective
sensitive guilt because leftists are collectivists of things that countries
did that they ascribed to race. So whites killed the Indians,
Whites enslaved the Africans. White none of that's the product
of whiteness. There's nothing in a white babies DNA that
says I'm going to grow up and some slaves or
which is a product of power. That's what countries did.
And you know, obviously, like they weren't all the same.
It wasn't the Irish slave and everybody. It wasn't the
Polish that killed the Indians. The other assist see power
and it happens whatever. But they they don't look at
what states do as agencies and decision makers and businesses
or any of that. They see it as a racial thing.
They're like, oh, yeah, well they're all this color, so
that must be why they did it. And they so
they walk around these stupid collective s ideas and they
feel guilty about it. In a way of trying to
shed the guilt is by adopting all these other moral
moral precepts, and it's all disingenuous and that's where it's like,
this is a mental thing, because you can say which
is borne out by all the hypocrisy and a looping
all over it.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Well yeah.
Speaker 1: He even says here that we argue that a very
important and influential segment of the modern left is over socialized,
and that their over socialization is of great importance in
determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the over
socialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the
upper middle class. Notice that university intellectuals constitute the most
highly socialized segment of our society and also the most
left wing segment.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The leftist of the over socialized type tries to get
off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling,
but usually he is not strong enough to rebel against
the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals
of today's leftists are not in conflict with the accepted
morality on the contract.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle,
adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society
of violating that principle. And the examples he uses are
racial equality, equality of the sex is helping poor people
peace as opposed to war and non violence generally, freedom
of expression, kindness to animals.
Speaker 3: Well, they've even lost the peace one because that's not
the established system thing anymore, and that's not the leftist
position anymore. Like when the say state says go to
war and that becomes normalive, then they all are the yay,
let's go to nuclear war. I mean they're ready. They're
ready to invade Libya and they're ready to attack Syria.
They're ready to do whatever the television says. If it
told them peace, then they would believe in peace. They
have no agency. It's just they don't. They're not strong
enough to fight the system. And you can see this,
this has happened all ways, like music, comedy, all the
way down through all the entire strata, where they are
just reinforcing the system's desires. But it will not challenge
any of the current problems. Right Like if say, here's
a good example, you're not you're against racism, great, and
so they'll spend all this time bashing you know, seventeenth
century slavery or something, but not Zionism, right because Jewish supremacy,
that type of racism has consequences. If you fight against that,
you'll get canceled, you can lose your job, you can
get kicked out of the university because you're going to
get labeled anti Semitic, which is ridiculous. But so if
you defend Palestinians, if you, you know, point out any
Zionis crimes, ownership of this or that or whatever, you're
gonna have to face consequence. So you don't see a
lot of professors challenging that one. They're going to go
right along with it. And the only time you will
see any any criticism of Israel is only the Palestine conflict.
Nothing with the Rock, Theior and any of the rest
of it. And that's just competing victim groups like well,
that's the anti colonialism part of it or whatever, or the.
Speaker 1: Fact that they created communism and they basically the every
transgenderism is being one of the biggest families on the
planet pushing transgenderism, or the Pritzkers in Illinois.
Speaker 2: M.
Speaker 3: Would you see what I'm saying. It was like, if
you're so anti racist, why is it only white racism
when you're fighting Jewish racism? Is okay? Right? Every other
form of racism is Okay, it's only the one that
you don't like because that's the group you don't like
because you identify in the superior category in your head,
not mine, not yours. But that's how they see it.
So they're like, oh, we hate that, and I'm like,
I agree, like, yes, you shouldn't. White should not be
racist to minorities. But I just don't think they are.
I think they're the least racist group there is. I mean,
Whites are like hyperly anti racist and afraid to even
be thought of it racist. I don't see that with
every other group. I think the majority of anybody is
not racist. But like when there are, it's usually the
other direction, you know, against lights, against men, against you know, Persians, Arabs, Jews, whatever, Asians,
like they all hate each other.
Speaker 1: But white's not being white's jumping right into anti racism
is the same basically like mk ultra kind of stuff
of being you know, we have. We can't be anti Semitic.
I mean, anti anti Semitism is the worst possible thing
you can be. I mean there is something you need
if you're anti Semitic, you need to be taken out basically,
I mean any.
Speaker 3: That's oh yeah, you're not a human being. If you're
a racist, that's worse than being a racist, because like
even if you rape somebody, you probably still work in
Hollywood or Wall Street. But if you said or you
could murder people like you have a policy that just
flattened the country and still get re elected. But if
you said the N word, you are gone, Like that
is a just mora or the K word or whatever
you know, racial f fats. Ralph Data pointed this out.
It's like, how how are you getting more been out
of shape for some racial or sexual epifat and not
actual ethnic cleansing and murder and gedocide and starvation is
saying it's like real crimes against humanity. Nah, that doesn't
hurt my feels because, like Uncle Ted said, that doesn't
give you a vehicle to exercise your power process and
be a control freak. If you're really concerned about justice,
why don't you try against home demolitions in Palestine or
the starvation of kids in the Yemen Because that's not fashionable.
You know what's I'm only I don't Ukraine because it's fashionable, right,
it's on Twitter's when it's there, you know, the lemiting effect.
But it lets him say to each other, look, I'm
I'm doing I'm in obedient, I'm saying the thing I'm
supposed to say. They will never challenge this, and the
system's pro Ukraine right now, so they're gonna be pro Ukraine.
But they will do whatever the system is doing, irrespective
whether it's right or not. Is usually not right. H
And it's like this lack of agency because their psychological
need is greater than their ability to reason, and definitely
greater than any principles. They usually don't have any.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a perfect example. Is like, you know, the
Holocaust narrative. Anyone who questions it is there's something. I mean,
I mean there what is a seventeen seventeen countries in Europe?
Speaker 4: You get thrown in.
Speaker 3: Jail for doing it?
Speaker 1: So no one asks why you know? And I asked
someone on Twitter. Yeah, And I asked someone on Twitter
the other day, I said, have you ever asked yourself
why you get so emotional over an event that you
weren't even alive?
Speaker 3: For? Well, someone, it's like saying I think it was
five million instead of six or whatever. You're you know,
you'll go to prison. Actually, I mean just I don't
want to get in trouble, but yeah, I got ready
to say something. I'll hell, I'll say six billion is
not a historical figure anyway. That's from Steven Spielberg. That's
not from Rallhillberg or Lipstatter or anybody else. Like orthodox
Holocaust history has never said six million. That's straight out
of Hollywood. And that doesn't mean it didn't happen or
anything like that, like there was a Holocaust all I'm
not saying that. To say that number is just just
pulled out of TV. And that's with a lot of
historical events. A lot of things in history are hijacked
by Hollywood. Happens all the time, but they can get corrected,
whereas this one cannot because it's like, no, you no
exaggeration in my house. Stupid you know, saying Germans made
furniture out of body parts and just ridiculous stuff like that.
Soaping lance say that's all bull but you can't say no. Well,
I think that makes their more doubt about the Holocaust
rather than less, because if you're going to accept every
idiot exaggeration people common sensory and go, well, I might
not be allowed to say it, but I don't think so,
and that makes the slippery slope and then they start
doubting the rest of it that they might not ought
to doubt, right, And that happens with like globe warming too,
when you have these morons saying the Earth is gone
in twelve years. No, no, it isn't. And that doesn't
mean the Earth is not warming. But you've made these
really wild exaggerations that no one's allowed to question or
they are a science denier. No no, no, no no,
And so it starts sliding to become more and more ridiculous,
whether it's the holocausts or global warming or gender stuff
or whatever, because you are politically not allowed to fight back.
It's all the exaggerations are one direction, and that just
helps the opposite side. Like let's say, like a holocaust
denier or something, they can point to all these ridiculous claims,
you know, like you've heard the electric floors stupid stuff
and go, okay, they did not have poisoned fang German
shepherds stuff because they didn't, and it helps them make
a case. And the fact that it censored makes it
seem like ce see, you'll go to jail if you
question it. That's because it ain't true, and that's why
you can't question it. You're helping them out. What you
ought to do is just allow them the dialogue with
throwing people in jail for historical opinions, like it's not
on shaking ground. You have the core report in Himmler's
orders and all these things, you show what was going on.
Just let it, you know, let them talk and give
them the counterpoints. But they don't because I think they
don't have those counterpoints. But like, don't worry other people do.
Just let it, let it go. And that's to be
with all the stuff. But you can't and that's with
like you can't discuss IQ stuff either. Why not, Well,
because that's not allowable. You know, one of the sides
of that are argument is is detestable or whatever. So
you don't get the talk. Man, Okay, that doesn't help
your position, right, the censorship Just create Zecha favors and
cast out on the whole thing, because everybody knows, well,
if you're only allowed to have one conclusion, then how
much faith can I have in this conclusion. It's the
only one that's allowed to speak, so it has no
credibility at all. And that's what they're doing. Every time
they sensor stuff or force people shut up about a
historical event, scientific concept, whatever it is, they undermine their
own credibility by being militantly like eh, and like you say,
why are you so emotional about the Holocaust? Like why
can't you just have an adult discussion about it? Can't
do it. And it's weird because like, well, we could
discuss how many people died in the Battle of Fredericksburg
or something and come up with different numbers. No one
say no one died in the battle or anything. But
like you can't do that with Triplinka or something or
elsehould it? You can't. You're not allowed to do it
because they have this emotional reaction of like you're going
to see zero. I have never met a revisionist in
my life that said zero. Right the giant they said,
they can't even name the camps. The people that have
this really strong opinion of aout the Holocaust no absolutely
nothing about it. And that tends to be with a
lot of political subjects. The people that love Lincoln or
something don't know anything about Lincoln, don't know anything about
the Civil War, but they have a really passionate opinion
about it. They've never read a single book about it.
They don't Jack, but they're like, yes, but the narrative
is he got rid of slavery, and I'm really against
slavery because slavery is racist and it's psychological.
Speaker 1: The you were talking about how what Hollywood creates and everything,
like the thing that Steven Spielberg left out of the
out of the movie that Amon got you know who
was Ray Fine's character. He was dismissed from the from
the SS in charge with maltreatment, illegal punishment of prisoners,
and failure to provide adequate.
Speaker 3: Food for them. That that did.
Speaker 4: That didn't make it into the movie, did it?
Speaker 3: No, A lot of things don't make it in the movie.
Shreelberg's part of these the mega donor group for Jeffrey
Epstein's so you know, he's just that guy whatever. And
I think it psychologically horrifies Jews too, because the more
you exacted like that, I don't know why you have
to exaggerate the Holocaust it was. It was bad enough,
you don't need to add all this extra ridiculous crap
to it. But the more you know, demonic they have
like they they made Pelvis bon ash trays and just
you know, it makes like this sense of resentment it's
never again, and this almost neurotic behavior like, oh it's coming,
the next show is right around the corner, and it isn't.
But that's on a good become of self fulfilling prophecy.
You lash out at all your neighbors over nothing all
the time. Then you bring about what you're trying to avoid.
And it's also disgusting lied to about Germans. They're like, look,
they didn't do these things. They did plenty of horrible things.
So the Allies, I mean they knew two cities, okay,
Like they also starved people. They also shot civilians, they
also tortured people. They did. That's everyone was guilty of that.
Let's just submit that. No, it's g I Joe star Wars.
We were good, they were bad. They did all the evil.
We just liberated camps. Like you put people in camps.
What are you talking about? He just some of you
are the same generations. It just got done. Killing off
the apache are generals and things in World War two.
Think about that. That's fucked and that's true.
Speaker 1: So uh, let's finish let's finish up with this part.
We certainly do not claim that left us, even of
the over socialized type, never rebel against the fundamental values
of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some over socialized
left us have gone so far as to rebel against
one of modern society's most important principles by engaging in
physical violence. By their own account, violence for them is
a form of liberation. In other words, by committing violence,
they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained
into them because they are over socialized. These restraints have
been more confining for them than for others, hence their
need to break free from them. But they usually justify
their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage
in violence, they claim to be fighting against racism or
the like.
Speaker 3: Right, I can loose a store and grab stuff I
want because I'm fighting racism and police abuse or whatever,
And no you're not, You're just greedy and looting a store.
But they often do this in masochistic fashion too, where
they go lay in the middle of a road or
glue themsels like a distinction rebellion, like I want to
go glue my hands to the parking lot or whatever.
The link up in arms and block highway or do
a die in and lay on the ground, stupid masochistic
stuff like that. But he's right in the sense that
they will do violence. When society says, hey, violence never,
they answer, don't be violent. But violence is okay if
you're fighting the Nazis. Right, that became the thing that
became the window. Here's an inarguable evil Nazism because we
use violence to stop the Nazis. Therefore, if you can
create a new Nazi, violence is okay. So you're like,
I'll punch a Nazi and they don't have to be
a Nazi, you just have to accuse him of being
a Nazi. You're like, I'll cancel a Nazi. They don't
have to be Nazi. You just have to accuse him
of being a Nazi. This is loophole where you can
because canceling is an act, violence is financial terrorism. They
can do all these things so long as they tell themselves, well,
that's that's different. They're a Nazi, I said, I said Nazi,
so now I'm allowed to punch them, cancel them, burn
their property, whatever, because they're not really a human being anymore.
If you're anti Semitic, that's the greatest sin there is.
Speaker 1: Well we saw that in the Biden speech too, the
one he did in Philadelphia with the red backdrop. He's
basically putting forth that putting forth the narrative that anyone
who is ultra maga or you know, basically questions the
twenty twenty election is a fascist?
Speaker 3: Is you know? Is the enemy? I mean?
Speaker 1: And God, does anybody know the meaning of fascism?
Speaker 3: Totally screaming and pain as they beat you. Yeah, because
not allowing people to question the twenty twenty election is fascism?
Holy well, so it's all totalitarianism anyway. And then and
the red background, I'm like, wow, you just your optics.
Whoever did this to you? Who ever thought this up?
It's amazing. And I just look the US riggs elections
and they support terrorists. British just got caught, you know,
was that Hugh Ward was the one who thought up
the plan to bomb the Kersh Bridge in crimea British
sas they did it. That's how I like, we're financing
acts of terrorists. They finance isis? Is it? If people
had principles like what happened in the anti war left,
well it never existed. It was an anti Bush left.
It wasn't an anti war left. It was an anti
Republican and anti Bush because it's not their team and
they can't get power that way. They do things to
grandize themselves and gain power. Nothing to do with principles.
They don't have sympathy for Rockies or anything like that.
They just wanted, uh to bash the guy that wasn't
on their team. Yeah yeah, I mean you saw it disappear,
like Obama went in and did all the same words,
and they're like, yay, this it is okay. Now, it's
like the old joke with the bomb of the rainbow
on it out. It's all right because it's gayer.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Really, you know, I remember when I was a kid
being like, yeah, it was obvious that a lot of
the Democrats and a lot of the Republicans didn't like
each other. But there was like when Tip O'Neil was
Speaker of the House. I mean, tip O'Neil wasn't this
bombastic retard who just you know, called people on the
other side of the Aisle immoral and you know, fascists
and everything like that. So you know, you look thirty
years later, forty years later.
Speaker 3: Even like ging Rich. Yeah, like yeah, yeah, look how
far we've fallen from that to Pelosi who's talking about
punching Trump in the face and I'll love it and
go to jail and tearing up his State of Union
address on camera behind him, Like how immature is that this?
You're like eighty years old and you're grabbing a speech
and you just tearing it up. Just say, look, I
don't need to speech that. That's acting like such a child.
I'm going to rip the speech up. She did that. Yeah,
there's no consequence. There's no consequence for it. No regular
like this and this. Okay, So let me get to
the meat of uncle Ted, because we bashed on leftist
Yeah yeah, but like how how did it get this way? Is?
Uncle Ted develops this theory of and it's an evolutionary
explanation for psychological ills that incorporates components of autonomy and
what he calls the power process. And it's just it's
such an elegant explanation for like how he ended up
like this, Yeah, you have groups that have very feelings
of inferiority and then they're over socialized. But he's showing
like all this unhappiness and depression and different, you know,
especially among leftists. Like leftists, women consume more antidepressants than
other kinds of pills than any other demographic. Right, they're
pill popping. And this is the really scary stuff that
he talks about this way later too, that rather than
changing your environment, you and change your internal environment so
that you can deal with it. You're going to take
SSRIs and pills that affect your brain so you're better
able to tolerate conditions you couldn't tolerate otherwise. But don't
change the system, just change your brain instead. It's mild
mind control taking all these different pills and therapies and
stuff to go. Let me get you back on the track,
you nice little worker being, you know, do this, don't
shut up about it. But people are miserable in the
kind of lifestyle they have in the industrial society. You think, well,
why we have our physical needs met? We have on
paper it looks like definitely improvement. We live longer usually
we I don't have to hunt or farm around your
go go store and buy my food. That's wrong with that, Well,
there's nothing wrong with that from the point of allowing
higher special skills because your basic needs have been taken
care of. But in taking care of your physical needs,
you are removing a process that was psychologically healthy that
has not been replaced by something else. And this is
where this is where a lot of people get lost.
They think, Oh, he's just he's just one of these
environmental that hates industry. No, it's not what he's talking about.
He's saying, in creating an industry to meet your physical needs,
the activities that you would engage in to get those needs, fishing, farming, whatever,
actualize a certain set of potentials that you need to
do for goal attainment and reward that are healthy for
your brain in psychology and fulfillment. And if you don't
have a sergate activity or something to replace that process
and the autonomies. That is not for everyone, but definitely need.
It's not a component for some people really strongly, but
everyone has this goal attainment reward process they go through.
And when you just have instant gratification there was no
effort to go get that sandwich or whatever, then you
are not going through that process. And that's what creates
this emptiness and is a large source for all these
different mental illnesses, depression, narcissism, and all this stuff that
are so prevalent in society is because industrial society has
removed this process in our environment. We physically grew up
with having to exercise a certain number of skills and
stuff to attain our goals, and all that's been instantly removed,
and it's very unhealthy psychologically for us. And that may
be the other route of why there are so many
crazy leftists that are just sad and depressed and lashing
out and rage and they need a cause, they need
to do a thing to fight that they needed to
be something. Everyone agrees with this, so they know they're
not going to lose, right, so jump on a problem
that's already been resolved from years ago, like fighting races
and whatever, and they jump on it. But it's this
part of the manifesto that I like the second most,
is this idea of how are we psychologically evolved just
like we physically evolved, and that ties into aesthetics and
other things. It's really wonderful and builds on what other
philosophers and customary to Bruce Lee have said about self
actualization too, but Uncle Ted had different elements added to it,
especially when his chapters on the power process and autonomy
and that's the one you might want to read three
or four times because people usually base who they're thinking
on heuristics. Big alli, what you're just like environmental or something. No,
it's not what he's saying. Read what he's actually saying
very different from what you're assuming he's going to say,
which is why we're going over it right somewhere.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, obviously, if I'm sitting there and somebody is
telling me, you know, someone who's read the manifesto three
or four times and you know, really dug down deep
into it, and then somebody on the outside is telling
me it means something that it's not even close to
what it means.
Speaker 3: Then I'm yeah, he's not one of these like back
to nature weirdos, like yeah, he lived in a cabin
because the FBI was looking for him. But he's saying
that you can find your psychological fulfillment in this a
process of gold attainment and reward. It has you have
to have a degree, and it gives the example of
like if you were well, I'll give this his damble.
If I was to play some four year old and chess,
I win. Let's see some prodigy weirdo. But I'm not
going to get any enjoyment out of that. It's like, yeah,
got your queen, whatever, got your king, And if I
played some supercomputer and I lost every time, there's no
fulfillment in just getting completely crossed or completely smashing at something.
There has to be a moderate amount of effort to
make the reward have value, to make the end of
the goal have value. Right, it doesn't. It doesn't even
have to have an endpoint, like with martial arts or
something like that. You could just constantly have self improvement,
getting better and better at at a certain set of skills, right,
because it takes a lot of effort to develop them
or whatever you're doing playing a piano playing when you
master a thing that's psychologically healthy, you don't really need
to play a piano or no muay Thai or whatever
for the end product. Kind of go around and get
in the street fights and I guess you could use
piano for money eventually, but that's not the point. It's like,
in learning the skill, you were exercising something that we
needed in evolution psychologically to go through goal attainment to
procure happiness and stability in your brain, and we don't
have any skills, which again, you look at leftists, they're
all a bunch of losers. That's why they get so
attracted to the easiest thing, which is to claim moral
superiority and champing around all these causes that have already
been resolved.
Speaker 1: Well, I appreciate this, give your plugs and I'll let
you get back to your life.
Speaker 3: Well we get like we only talked to the very
end about the power process. That could be even a
part too, and that yeah, it does take part. It
does take some time to go over the over socialization
and the feelings of inferiority. And it's because that you
have to have that piece before you go to the
next part. But the next part is where it really
starts coming together. So what really adds to Uncle Ted,
Like why he's listen, the guy is serial killer? Fuck him,
you know, like that's we're just talking about his writing.
He's also a victim of n k Ultra, so that
you know, no one's praising his work because if he
sent bombs in the mail. To make that real clear,
that's not why. But what he says, what he said,
irrespective how he bathed, doesn't change what he wrote.
Speaker 1: But we might we we probably wouldn't be reading what
he wrote if he didn't send bombs in the mill.
Speaker 3: That's that's his argument, right, It's like, well, would you
have even noticed this if I hadn't done something super extreme, like, well,
if you had waited two more years, we could put
the whole man in festive online because when his ninety
five came out, and I would have read it, I
don't know, but yeah, hard to say. And it was
important enough for him, And if you look at some
of his targets, it's not I mean they're kind of
assholes too. That still that it was like because to him,
he sees this as an existential crisis. He's like, we're
going off the cliff in his mind, and.
Speaker 4: I look at the world, look at the world.
Speaker 3: Now. He's sadly correct in all his predictions thus far.
It just seems like, well, could you attempt to get
it out in a magazine or something first before you
sent the bombs? I don't know. Actually he did, so
that doesn't work either. Yeah, I mean, I don't know.
Maybe I'm just socialized to say, look, don't ever send
bombs to people, But I don't know. Maybe we wouldn't
have read it, but uh, he did do that, and
I did read it because of that. That's why I
was like, oh, what do you want to say? So bad? Right?
Like he did he went to jail for the rest
of his life and killed people just because he wanted
you to publish his book. I got to read that book. Yeah,
that's why I read it, and I mean eleven paragraphs.
Then I was like already telling other people to read it.
I'm like, whoa, he doesn't wonder they didn't want anybody
to see this right?
Speaker 1: Oh the wash Oh it's amazing that the Washington Post
was the first one to published this and they took
an insane amount of flack for it.
Speaker 3: No, no, it was Penthouse Magazine was really that wasn't good.
Penhouse published it, and then yeah, the newdi magazine, but
that wasn't a wide enough or serious enough publication for Ted.
And then his brother uh realized like, oh that's him
and told on him. But the Washington Post, yeah the most,
I guess. I mean, hell, I respect Penthouse more than
Washington Post after all, Like garbage is in the Washington
Post that you know, they're a bunch of warm mongering nuts.
But yeah, and it's the Washington Post Online still has
the whole manifesto, minus the He had a couple of
a couple of bits in Spanish that they've changed in English.
But yeah, that's about it. That's fluent in several languages.
By the way, he taught himself some more eyes in jail.
Oh wow, interesting, very interesting guy. Man. This is like,
it's like Mike Tyson man, Like the guy went to
jail for rape. I personally don't think he did it,
but he said he'd done other things that he had
gotten away with. I'd still interview him, you know what
I mean. I feel like it's not just because I
like boxing. I just like what a character. Man. Guys
had a really weird life, kicking Don King in the
head and going six months and an hour down the road.
And you know.
Speaker 4: Everybody where they can find your stuff.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm banned on almost everything, but I do have
a website, which is the Anti Neocon Report. It's a
n C report dot com. And I have a substack
just Ryan Dawson on substack, and uh yeah, I use
all the super alternative stuff Rumble, Otyssey, Gabs, and I'm
on Cozy TV now with the America Firsters. I have
nothing to do with them, but they let me on
the platform that's so cozy dot tv slash Dawson. Pretty
much every day at eight pm I'll do a live
stream there.
Speaker 4: Cool man.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 3: I really enjoy talking to you about these kind of topics.
Peace Austin. I'm going to see in Texas.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, oh yeah, all right, I'll talk to you later.
Speaker 3: Thanks. Bett.
Speaker 4: I want to welcome.
Speaker 1: Everyone back to the Pecan Show, returning the Prudentialist.
Speaker 6: I'm doing great, Pete, happy to be here.
Speaker 4: Thank you for joining me for this.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: These are always these are always fun to do. These
are always well received. When I read through the Whole
Industrial Society and its Future with my friend Aaron, like
the first episode we did on that is one of
my most downloaded episodes ever.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's like in the top five.
Speaker 1: And people really really enjoy hearing Ted because once you
read Ted, as you know you were sending me, you
sent me an article in the middle of the night
last night, You're just you're just laughing because it's it's
like I said before we started, there are things that
are going to make you laugh out loud, and then
there are things that are going to make you, you know,
throw your hands up.
Speaker 4: And go, you know, fuck, how do we get how
do we get past this?
Speaker 6: Yeah? Absolutely, I mean, whether it's reading like some what
will you call the classics, I guess, like the system's
neatest trick, or in you know, industrial society in its future.
I mean, there's a lot in there for you to
really take in and consider. And I mean I get
that he's a meme nowadays, which is kind of unfortunate
that this man's writing and intellectual canon is now going
to be reduced to kids always on them damn phones
kind of memes. But no, his writing I think is
essential for anyone on the right to kind of understand
what kind of you know, Genie we've let out at
the bottle, the sort of technological Pandora's box, and not
so much I would say, for I mean, there are
very real industrial problems and environmental issues that need to
be addressed, but also just the mass social psychology and
the impact that technology has on things like basic assumption groups,
the you know, the mind of the crowd, you know,
like just imagine Gustav Lebon with you know, with a smartphone,
like it's it's crazy to think about. But Ted gets
to it very clearly, even before the craziness of you know,
the post two thousand and seven smartphone age.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he.
Speaker 1: When once you get once you realize that he's writing
about the human condition more than he's writing about technology,
and it's really he's diagnosed in the human condition. I
mean people had done it before. You know, he was working.
He was basing off the work of works like JOCKA. Louwell,
people like that. He wasn't one hundred percent original in
his thought. But when he really starts, what he had
over a lule was he got to see technology go
even further.
Speaker 4: You know, it's like, you know, it's like.
Speaker 1: When you realize that, like Carl Schmidt lived into the
eighties and you're like everything that he saw and everything
that he wrote, and he's like, oh man, I mean
basically I was a prophet. And I mean that's why
you know, my friend Ryan calls Ted the prophet, because
he has predicted a lot of this.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean when Ted first started writing, and even
after his time in prison, when he still continued to
write and correspond with those that had believed in his work,
I mean.
Speaker 2: You.
Speaker 6: He comes to conclusions that were just beginning to take
for granted, it's not like the pseudorealities that we all
live in that you know, well, you know Litman talked
about a century ago has changed. I mean a lul Lipmann, Bernez,
all of these folks, you know, he identified and then
realized that that can be technologically amplified by the ways
in which our industrial society lives in. And so yeah,
I mean when you look at him more of as
a writer of the human condition, like you said, you
really begin to understand that he is predicting and has predicted,
and I foresee that he will continue to be right
for long after my lifetime of where we're going. But
I think for what we're going to read today, he
sort of poses maybe he'll be right again, just in
the way that we all like to meme about with
the respects to collapse or catabolic collapse. And so I
think that we've got a good reading an episode for
your listeners.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this title is called why the Technological System Will
Destroy Itself? And if I'm correct reading it off of
the Anarchist Library website, it's from July twenty first, two
thy eleven, but it looks like it may not have
been released for a couple of years after he wrote it. Yeah,
so all right, let me share this and we'll get
to reading. Oh yeah, I had here. Here's the irony
of all ironies is. I got an email this morning
suggesting that when I should take classes on how to
read better, because apparently people want me to sound like
a robot. And I guess it's I guess it's not
folksy when I when I come across words that I
can't pronounce, I should be looking at every word beforehand
and be figuring that out. So no, I mean, thanks,
thank you for the suggestion, but I certainly will not
be doing that.
Speaker 6: If you want a robot to read you things, do
subscribe to our friend's skeptical waves. But I mean, I
think the human aspect of this is far more important.
Speaker 1: All right, So why the technological system will destroy itself?
Our discussion, and please stop me anytime.
Speaker 6: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Our discussion deals with self propagating systems. By a self
propagating system self prop system for short, we mean a
system that tends to promote its own survival and propagation.
A system may propagate itself in either or both of
two ways. The system may indefinitely increase its own size
and or power, or it may give rise to new
systems that possess some of its own rates. The most
obvious examples of self propagating systems are biological organisms. Groups
of biological organisms can also constitute self prop systems, example,
wolf packs and hives wolf packs and hives of honeybees.
Particularly important for our purposes are self prop systems that
consist of groups of human beings, for example nations, corporations,
labor unions, and political parties. Also some groups that are
not cleverly delimited and lack formal organization, such as schools
of thought, social networks, and subcultures. Just as wolf packs
and beehives are self propagating without any conscious intention on
the part of wolves or bees to propagate their packs
or their hives, there is no reason why a human
group cannot be self propagating independently of any intention on
the part of the individuals who comprise that of the group.
Speaker 6: I mean, I wonder, though, you know, like, there's no
reason why human group can't be self propagating independently. I mean,
you know that would be basic human instinct right to
go out and reproduce. But we're not like wolves or honeybees,
where that's just instinctual go lay eggs or go have
you know, mate during while you're in heat. Now it's
just more of a conscious choice whether or not we
do it or not. So I wonder if we'll get
into that in this one, you know, whether or not
we'll see our conscious decision or our programming that we
see in these basic assumption groups, because it makes me
wonder if Kazynski's read like Wilford bayon On like social psychology.
But I mean we'll see. But yeah, self propagating got
a corrective systems kind of Marx system. It's analysis when
like Marx critiques like the essence of capital, because it
can be a self correcting system. But in this instance,
you know, self propagation means of survival, right.
Speaker 1: And mar Marx's analysis is, as Hans Armanopas says, true
about ninety percent of the time. Yeah, so it's worth
the read, just not the communists manifesto. Stop reading that people, it's.
Speaker 3: Not for you.
Speaker 1: If A and B are systems of any kind, self
propagating or not, and if A is a functioning component
of B, then we will call A a subsystem of B,
and we will call B a subsystem of A. For example,
in human hunting and gap during societies, individuals are members
of bands, and bands are often organized into tribes. Individuals, bands,
and tribes are all self prop systems. The individual is
a subsystem of the band, the band is a subsystem
of the tribe, and the tribe is a subsystem of
each band that belongs to it. And each band is
a subsystem of every individual who belongs to that band.
It is also true that each individual is a subsystem
of the tribe, and that the tribe is a supersystem
of every individual who belongs to a band that belongs
to the tribe. You want to go at that word, Salid,
I mean.
Speaker 6: I know, just he's outlining the basic social organization of
how this works here. I mean, bands, tribes, and individuals
can all be self prop systems, but we are subsystems
of that band if we belong to a social organization.
So outlining the maps here, got it.
Speaker 1: The principle of natural selection is operative not only in biology,
but in any environment in which self propagating systems are present.
The principle can be stated roughly as follows. Those self
propagating systems having the traits that best suit them to
survive and propagate themselves tend to survive and propagate themselves
better than other self propagating systems. This is, of course
an This, of course, is an obvious tautology. So it
tells us nothing new, but it can serve to call
our attention to factors that we might otherwise overlook. We
are about to advance several propositions. We can't prove these propositions,
but they are intuitively plausible, and they seem consistent with
the observable behavior of self propagating systems as represented by
biological organisms and human formal and informal organizations. In short,
we believe these propositions to be true or as close
to the truth as they can be for present purposes.
Do you want me to just go onto prop one? Yeah,
let's go for it, all right, Proposition one. In any
environment that is sufficiently rich, self propagating systems will arise,
and natural selection will lead to the evolution of self
propagating systems having increasingly complex, subtle, and sophisticated means of
surviving and propagating themselves.
Speaker 6: I mean, so far it seems like a pretty solid
proposition to take as truth. I mean, any environment that
is capable of supporting life leads to evolution. I mean,
numerous species other than human beings have complex formal systems
of communication, ants, honeybees, wolf packs, like he's already mentioned humans,
even you know, various monkeys and tribes like that that
we've observed that are aggressive or engage in war that
we've documented with chimpanzees. So yeah, I mean so far right,
like we're getting a pretty solid proposition for what's to
come here. I don't know what could be a corollary
to this other than you know, throughout the history of
you know, the evolutionary record that we've got, you know,
there's always been some kind of sophisticated tribal ways and
means of territory, scent marking, stuff like that.
Speaker 1: Sure, And I think this is also this is also
shining a light upon the fact that people will, if
people had, if it's sufficiently rich enough, that they will
create things to make their lives more easy, which makes
it which allows them to propagate themselves more efficiently.
Speaker 6: Yeah, self propagating system will have not only like complex
means of surviving, like social rules and stigmas, religions, et cetera.
But also technology, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay.
Speaker 1: Commenting on proposition one, natural selection operates relative to particular
periods of time. Let's start at some given point in
time that we can call time zero. I'm sorry, I
have those self prop systems that are most likely to
survive or have surviving progeny five years from time zero
are those that are best suited to survive and propagate
themselves in competition with other self prop systems during the
five year period following time zero.
Speaker 6: That feels like every basic you know, business one oh
one starting thing, Like you know, most businesses don't survive
in five years time. So I don't know why my
brain just went to that for some reason.
Speaker 1: But here we are, my brain into bodies lie millions
of bodies lying in a ditch on the.
Speaker 6: Side of the road, a real time zero. Let's go.
Speaker 1: These will not necessarily be the same as those self
prop systems that, in the absence of competition during the
five year period, would be best suited to survive and
propagate themselves during the thirty years following time zero. Similarly,
the systems best suited to survive competition during the first
thirty years following time zero are not necessarily those that,
in the absence of competition during the thirty year period,
would be best suited to survive and propagate themselves for
two hundred years and so forth.
Speaker 6: For basic evolutionary stuff, right there, I mean, you know,
humans from ten thousand years ago on the ice ages
probably wouldn't do so well today.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he's going to give an example here.
Speaker 6: Oh, there we go.
Speaker 1: For example, suppose a forested region is occupied by a
number of small rival kingdoms. These kingdoms that clear the
most land for agricultural use can plant more crops and
therefore can support a larger population than other kingdoms. This
gives them a military advantage over their rivals. If any
kingdom restrains itself from excessive forest clearance out of a
concern for the long term consequences, then that kingdom places
itself in a military disadvantage and is eliminated by the
most powerful kingdoms. Thus the region comes to be dominated
by kingdoms that cut down their forests recklessly. The resulting
deforestation leads eventually to ecological disaster and therefore to the
collapse of all the kingdoms. Here a trait that is
advantageous or even indispensable for a kingdom's short term survival,
Recklessness in cutting trees leads in the long term to
the demise of the same kingdom.
Speaker 6: The example, I see this actually with artificial intel jus
because I think that for those that are raising the
alarm bells for it, I mean, as much as that
Yudkowski guy looks like a total meme, Like I saw
him do an interview with a Ross Scott of Accursed
Farms on YouTube, and I mean he had like the
red T shirt, the like vest and the fedora and
he looked like a twenty eleven new atheist. But you know,
is as wild as some of his concerns can be.
Like I could foresee the same thing with like nuclear weapons,
there any basic technological accelerationist bent Like I wonder if
Kazenski ever had a chance to read Paul Varillio when
Paul Verlio was still alive, because you know, this is
a lot of what Verilio is concerned about us is
that we will inevitably, because humanity's technological progress is vastly
accelerated since the end of the nineteenth century, that we're
going to move ourselves so fast in a direction that
whatever accident that we may have, because each new invention
creates an accident that we're going to you know, inevitably
destroy her. And he talks about things like the genetic
Kiroshima and things like that, which is like on like paper, right,
unfathomably based name. But he's just like, no, like mankind
will accelerate with its technology, we may destroy ourselves because
of it. And I can't help but think about that
with this little example here, like short term survival right
in terms of like great power struggles. Geopolitically, you need
to be the strongest military. That tends to mean having
the largest army, which means having the largest population. And
so you see that kind of right now with say
like the US and China, right like, there's always these
fights over quantum computing and artificial intelligence, and China wants
to increase its nuclear weapons armaments and things like that,
and so you're in a weird position where all technological advancements,
which are ordinarily based in terms of military readiness, because
military readiness is usually the only way to guarantee survival
at the end of the day. I mean, this kind
of gives pathways to acceleration that can lead to severe
ecological consequences. But also, just like you know, millions must
die dot jpeg, you know.
Speaker 1: So the example illustrates the fact that where a self
prop system exercises foresight in the sense that concern for
its own long term survival and propagation leads it to
place limitations on its efforts for short term survival and propagation,
the system puts itself at a competitive disadvantage relative to
those self prop systems that pursue short term survival and
propagation without restraint. That leads us to proposition two. In
the short term, natural selection favors self propagating systems that
pursue their own short term advantage with little or no
regard for long term consequences. So he's, uh, we start
talking about high load time preference. Now seems to he's
on the side of one of those right here. Sure,
all right, So he says, a corollary to proposition two
is proposition three. Self propagating subsystems of a given supersystem
tend to become dependent on the supersystem and on the
specific conditions that prevail within the supersystem.
Speaker 6: Why am I thinking about certain cities in America.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 6: Oh yeah, but let's go on before I think it's stupid.
Speaker 1: This means that between the supersystem and its self prop
subsystems there tends to develop a relationship of such a
nature that in the event of destruction of the supersystem,
or of any destruction acceleration of changes in the conditions
prevailing within the supersystem, the subsystems can either survive nor
propagate themselves.
Speaker 6: I Q shredders, bioleninism, you know things that kind of
go part and parcel with a lot of like human
biodiversity talking points. I just I see them on display
right here. You know, a supersystem that can subsidize or
enable a variety of high time preference, you know, immediate
kind of survival strategies. If that thing were to go
down neck and a handbasket, things are going to get
really bad, really quickly. And my brain just thinks about
like when Biden took off to the end that meeting
with like Al Sharpton and other black leaders, and he's
just like, listen, like we're not going to be in
charge forever. We're not going to be the majority forever.
So you need to learn to get along with everybody else,
and he's just like the supersystem is going to change.
Speaker 4: Yeah, let's get let's keep going.
Speaker 1: A self prop system with sufficient foresight would make provision
for its own or its descendants survival in the event
of the collapse or destabilization of the supersystem. But as
long as the supersystem exists and remains more or less stable,
natural selection favors those subsystems that take fullest advantage of
the opportunities available within the supersystem, and disfavors those subsystems
that waste some of their resources in preparing themselves to
survive the eventual destabilization of the supersystem. Under these conditions,
self prop systems will tend very strongly to become incapable
of surviving the destabilization of any supersystem to which they belong.
Like the other propositions put forward in this essay, proposition
three has to be applied with a dose of common sense.
If the supersystem in question is weak and loosely organized,
or if it has no more than a modest effect
on the conditions in which its subsystems exist, the subsystems
may not become strongly dependent on the supersystem among hunter gatherers.
In some, not all environments, a nuclear family would be
able to survive and propagate itself independently of the band
to which it belongs. Because tribes of hunter gatherers are
loosely organized, it seems certain that in almost all cases,
a hunter gathering band would be able to survive independently
of the tribe to which it belongs. Many labor unions
might be able to survive the demise of a confederation
of labor unions such as the AFL CIO, because such
an event might not be because such an event might
not fundamentally affect the conditions under which labor unions have
some function. But labor unions could not survive the demise
of the modern industrial society, or even the demise merely
of the legal and constitutional framework that makes it possible
for labor unions as we know them to operate.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean at the I'm already thinking of government here, right,
I mean, you would want and this sort of does
echo the truth right of like Happa and others, that
you kind of do want a destabilized system here, because
democracy has a tendency to self perpetuate in a way
that collectivizes itself more power from others. Right, you develop
a patronage network to where political machines now they solely
exist for the purpose of propagating and maintaining, say grievances
or like a specific racial bent. I mean, I know
that La Rasa has changed its name, right, but like
even then, right, if immigration were to stop tomorrow, Like,
how long term could La Rasa function or exist, especially
like deportation. These sort of political superstructures that we have,
like legal frameworks, constitutional understanding, I mean, they're also cultural, right, Like,
so even if the constitution disappears tomorrow, there's still a
large portion of people that woult adhere to constitutional you know,
Anglo American liberal principles of democracy and freedom. But how
well does that function now when there's no rule of
law governing authority? And so you know, it's not just
organized labor, but I mean it's the basic components of
you know, the peace and quiet and you know suburban
lifestyle that so many Americans enjoyed nowadays. And you know
once you and I mean you also see this too
with respects to you know, the creation of new tribes
and territory. I mean, everyone like sort of picks like
the Psych's Pico Treaty with respects to the Middle East.
But I mean even then, right, like you now have
to deal with like illegal superstructure borders that aren't yours,
but at the same time they are yours now because
you're technically sovereign, and all of a sudden, you're now
having to deal with the competition of like various different
ethnic groups, religious diversity, and institutions that are all trying
to make do. And it kind of proposes this interesting
corollary to this point here, because now all these subsystems
are still surviving without the overarching superstructure of say like
sovereign Iraqi government, because you still have the Kurdistan regional government,
you have a lot of like schie influence from Iran,
the Sunnis are not as popular as they were once were,
and then you have various other little minority groups and
sort of does illustrate that if you haven't attained like
a singularity of like total centralization of state power, then
you know things are probably going to continue on as
business as usual. Is Kazinski is writing here, But I
mean in a state like Germany or the UK or
Canada where there's like a national health service. Like there's
like little to no federal aspects. I mean you have
local councils and things, but everything really is more or
less determined by Parliament or worse, Brussels or the European Union.
I don't know how you survive if you got rid
of those things and you saw that. I think most
eloquently with you know, Brexit, because we want to leave
the superstructure. We think that we can do just fine
with our own national government, our own national sovereignty, our
own will so be it. And for three years, right
like Brussels would like campaign for the lib Dems to
get another referendum, you would get the Home Office actively
working against those interests because they saw themselves as dependent
on the legal superstructure. Those are their sinecures, those are
their jobs, those were their gimmes, those were their ways
to get more money and to rule indirectly. And so
we're just in a really interesting position now where we're
now watching transnational legal superstructures trying to create more dependent
states and it's self propagating. And once again because in
Ski's kind of on point.
Speaker 1: Here, well, I wonder if the United States, because of
federalism and because of a history, especially in the South
of localism is probably better better than most places to
survive it. You know, you mentioned HAPPA in the beginning,
and I mean in nineteen ninety seven, Happa was laying
out localism as you know, local bonds, building up local economy,
as things like that.
Speaker 3: And.
Speaker 1: All right, so after that little break there, Yeah, what
I was saying about the small subsystems in the United
States is that.
Speaker 4: HAPA had started talking.
Speaker 1: About that in nineteen ninety seven, and twenty five years later,
it looks like twenty six years later, it looks like
he was a prophet when you consider basically how our
national is breaking down.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and I mean, I think what Kazinsky is also
really just getting it here, is that a self prop system, right, Like,
it's like the social version of grey gou Right. Everyone
tells you that, like nano machines write paper Like the
most common example is like make paper clips, and the
AI you know, tells itself, Okay, well we'll make all
the paper clips in the world, which means we're gonna
eat all of humanity, all of the earth, and it'll
be nothing but a giant paper clip machine. Whereas in
this instance, he's just talking about on a social level,
on an evolutionary biology and psychology level, like a self
prop system is always going to centralize. I mean we
see that with bertrand to juvenile like on power the
natural history of its growth, that tends to happen that
you want to sort of make sure that you can't
be not as dependent on that system, especially with the
high low versus middle model, and so yeah, I mean,
Happa and Kazinski here kind of make a very important
point that unless you are not dependent on those structures,
I mean we I mean there's plenty of things like
unless you're an off gritter, right, I mean most people
that you know have like farms or gardens and can
take care of themselves, Like they're still dependent on you know,
the laws and taxes and things like that, even though
we complained about them every April fifteenth or so. I mean,
like it really does illustrate what you were saying earlier
before we took that little break there was that about
the South. I mean why even though like the Civil
War has been over since eighteen sixty five, I mean,
people still want to go to war with the concept
of the South because despite that huge reunification sort of
American americanization identity, especially in the late nineteenth century, early
nineteen or early nineteen hundreds, the South is still the
only place that has maintained a regional identity where people
still know each other, people still remain you know, like
the very skeptical of outsiders and things like that. But
nowadays it's that they still want that gone. They still
wish that they could burn down, you know, in March
to the South that they so wish, And I think
it does illustrate that on paper, the federal system that
the United States have may offer a nice defense to this,
but we are the federalism we have is what is
often called coercive federalism by a lot of con law scholars.
That you know, it's playball or no money for you.
And again it's a subject of taxation and revenues. What
Joseph Sobern was talking about back in the eighties that
just you know, we talk about taxation, it's theft and
it's confiscation because it's the ultimate tool of political power
the state uses to rob you and then fund your enemies.
And we see this here like we rob you because
we want the superstructure to live and we want you
dependent and in the long term that may not guarantee
your survival.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, I mean I grew up up north and
I moved to the South on purpose, and I don't
think I'm ever leaving here.
Speaker 3: Man.
Speaker 1: It's just it's totally it's much different vibe, much different vibe,
especially the small town. We're getting ready to move to
a small town, and I mean the people are already
like I'm sure it's because it's like, hey, who are
these people and everything, but I almost feel like they
chose us to buy this house and have this land
because it was you know, they looked at us and
they're like, these are the kind of people we went
around here.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean the selling agent was actually like there,
her family like owns half the land in the town.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's like how they're safe.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, it's uh, they're going to do everything they
can to protect what they have. So I'm pretty sure
that that town's not going to go to shit like
other places.
Speaker 4: So all right, moving on.
Speaker 1: Clearly, a system cannot be effectively organized for its own
survival and propagation unless the different parts of the system
can promptly communicate with one another and lend aid to
one another. Moreover, it, in order to operate effectively throughout
a given geographical region, a health prop system must be
able to receive prompt information from and act promptly upon
every part of the region. Consequently, and this is proposition four.
Problems problems of transportation and communication impose a limit on
the size of the geographical region over which a self
prop system can extend its operation.
Speaker 6: Hmm, I wonder if he'll let's I'm trying. I'm trying
to read ahead and see this because I mean, we
have the I mean, communication is almost instantaneous. I mean
and to a point where you know, Americans and you know,
flyover country can watch like live stream go pro footage
of like the war in Ukraine and it's just like, ah, well,
we'll see. But even then, right like, you're not gonna
have total access to information. Law enforcements a really good example.
A lot of the FBI is dependent on access to
local info from cops and vice versa. So there's probably
problems obviously, but I mean we've got some pretty instantaneous
near you know, penotocon like you know, control over how
information flows and what we can monitor right.
Speaker 4: So, he says.
Speaker 1: Building off proposition four, human experience suggests proposition five. The
most important and the only consistent limit on the size
of the geographical regions over which self propagating human groups
extend their operations is the limit imposed by the available
means of transportation and communication. In other words, while not
all self propagating human groups tend to extend their operations
over a region of maximum size, natural selection tends to
produce some self propagating human groups that operate over regions
approaching the maximum size allowable by the allowed by the
available means of transportation and communication.
Speaker 6: I can just hear mat iglesias. You know shilling is
one billion Americans.
Speaker 1: Book today there is excuse me today there is quick
transportation and almost instant communication between any two parts of
the world, Hence proposition six. In modern times, natural selection
tends to produce some self propagating human groups whose operations
span the entire globe. Moreover, even if humans are someday
replaced by machines or other entities, natural selection will still
tend to produce some self propagating systems whose operations span
the entire globe. Current experience strongly confirms this proposition. We
see global superpowers, global corporations, global political movements, global religions,
global criminal networks, etc. Proposition six, we argue, is not
dependent on any particular traits of human beings, but only
on the general properties of self prop systems. So there
is no reason to doubt that the proposition will remain
true if and when humans are replaced by other entities.
Natural selection will continue to will continue to produce or
maintain self prop systems whose operations span the entire globe.
Speaker 6: I like is if and when you know, he seems
pretty sure they're which I mean, I don't blame him.
We're likely to replace ourselves with something.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's refer to such systems as global self prop systems.
Instant worldwide communications are still a relatively new phenomenon, and
their full consequences have yet to be developed. In the future,
we can expect global self prop systems to play an
even more important role than they.
Speaker 4: Do today Proposition seven.
Speaker 1: Where As today problems of transportation and communication do not
constitute effective limitations on the size of the geographical regions
over which self propagating systems operate, natural selection tends to
create a world in which power is mostly concentrated in
the possession of a relatively small numbers of global self
propagating systems.
Speaker 3: So far, so true.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, I don't think any of us are gonna argue.
Speaker 6: Yeah, no, relatively small number of global self propagating systems.
All right, well your choices are global homo right now,
and you know, some kind of third worlds and this
is what we're getting pushed here, yeah, or bricks. Well,
that nice multipolar rules based system where we're going to
repeat the same like you know, racialized talking points from
the Cold War, like you know, the more things change,
the more they safe the same. But here are the
small number of global self propagating systems.
Speaker 1: This proposition, too, is suggested by human experience, but it's
easy to see why the proposition is true independently of
anything specifically human. Among global self prop systems, natural selection
will favor those that have greater power. Great will have
the greatest power. Global or large scale self prop systems
that are weaker will tend to be eliminated or subjugated.
Small scale self prop systems that are too numerous or
too subtle to be noticed individually by the dominant global
self prop systems may retain some degree of autonomy, but
each of them will have only local influence.
Speaker 3: It may be.
Speaker 1: Answered that a coalition of small scale self prop systems
could challenge the global self prop systems. But if small
scale self prop systems organize themselves into a coalition having
worldwide influence, the coalition will itself become a global self
prop system.
Speaker 6: He just basically described the network state, you know, or
the yeah, what is it called the network state or
the startup state or something like that, or that book
that that Indian guy wrote the other year, just talking
about how like startup culture and small localized communities, like
you know, it can generate autonomy inside already autonomous territory.
You have the network states when it's called and it
just yeah, he just calls it out like that'll just
become a global self prop system of startup culture. So,
I mean, it's funny. I think I'm just this is
a side note here, but it's just like all these
like sort of you know, big pushing for small scale
self prop systems. It's all pushed by like X or
currently Silicon valley guys or techno optimistic leftists that are like, well,
maybe we should plan ahead for the future and talk
about like regenerative farming. I think about like the Rhizomas
school and things like that. And so you know, there
there's this like cognizant self awareness that like the track
that we're going on that Kazinski's talking about here, like
we're we need to plan ahead for the future. But
at the same time, right, you're also trying to prop
yourself up. And this what would inevitably become like a
global self prop system. And so you can either retain
local regional autonomy because I think they've got like something
in like Uruguay or whatever to help farm, or you
inevitably get subjugated, which I mean most techno optimism I
see that gets talked about, whether it's like Palladium or
any like venture capitalist. Right, like, all of these things
are still predicated on the super system, either of the
usg right, or of like the global economic system still existing.
And so you know what resistance are you willing to
have that either doesn't like completely destroy it or replace it,
right power transition theory one oh one, or are you
willing to play a little push and pull with the
current superstructure. And I mean I think that Kazinski, and
I think anyone sort of on the right at this
point is going to look at the global superstructure and
be like, well, this is not poised to last for
very long. So I mean, we'll see where he goes
on here, but yeah, world systems. There we go a
little bit of Wallerstein right there. So I'll just shut
up and we'll keep reading.
Speaker 1: Well, the interesting thing here is I have an episode
with my friend Tommy Simmons, who's been he is, like
on the ESG stuff four years ago.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and he fed me.
Speaker 1: I was sitting in an airport one day and he
just like starts sending me all these articles and he's like, here,
these are all all these people are talking about localism
is the answer, and they all turned out to be globalists.
They're all globalists. So you know, the question in the
episode we did, and if I remember, I'll link it
with this, is why would globalists be pushing localism?
Speaker 6: And yeah, well, I mean because they see the writing
on the wall or that, you know, might as well
get in on what survives afterwards. I mean, if I
were a smart cookie, and I like to think that
I am, but if I were one of those guys
that has made his way to the top through lord
knows what kind of devilish stealings.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 6: I would look at the writing on the wall too,
being like, how do I escape Mephistopheles coming to pit
you know, collect his dues and oh, you know localism
and regenerative agriculture and plant based food. So we really
need to save the planet everybody, you know, Like, I'd
imagine that's a really quick way to go about it.
But it really does tell you that who's the ones
that are really like the last like ten years or
like since two thousand and eight. And I don't know
how like correct economically this theory is, but I've seen
it pushed that like the low interest rates of like
the post two thousand and seven world led to this
just boom because it was money for nothing, right with
how the Fed was doing it with like nearly negative
interest rates or near zero rates for the longest time.
You know, you why not invest in something like buzz
speed or some weird startup culture in Silicon Valley because like,
it's money for nothing, Why the hell not? Even if
you make a loss, you know, there's plenty of money
to go around, and so you have this like whole
span of like techno optimist, proto woke culture that has
led to things like ESG, global governance, et cetera. And
you know, eventually, like I think everyone kind of knows
that like some kind of recession or collapses in the
near horizon, and so it's like, well, we should probably
think about how our what our escape plan is, or
what our option is. And so if the you know,
if this means everyone needs to return to farming, or
gender to agriculture, environmental causes, ESG, et cetera, like that,
that seems like where we would go for because the
system has to evolve, as he talked about, I think
in like proposition one about well these things enable the
evolution or for something else to come out of this
current self prop system. And well, as long as you
know we've got technological society, you know, techno capital, then
you know that's what they're going to do.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: Moving on, we can speak of the world system, meaning
all things that exist on Earth together with the functional
relations among them. The world system probably should be regarded
as a self prop system, but whether it is or
not is irrelevant for present purposes. To summarize, then, the
world system is approaching a condition in which it will
be dominated by a relatively small number of extremely powerful
global self prop systems. These global systems will compete for power,
as they must do in order to have any chance
of survival, and they will compete for power in the
short term with little or no regard for long term consequences.
Proposition too. Under these conditions, intuition tells us that desperate
competition among the global self prop systems will tear the
world system apart.
Speaker 6: Yeah, what I mean it is what it sounds like deglobalization,
Like all all of the white papers on deglobalizations, is
that you're not going to get you into polarity. So
you're going to get smaller regionalized blocks on a global scale,
all with their own respective intermittent economies trying to shore
up power and grow their spheres of influence.
Speaker 1: I I have an idea, but I want to have
an idea of something I want to say, but I
want to read a little further and see it. Okay,
feeds into it. Let's try to formulate the instituition more clearly.
For some hundreds of millions of years, the terrestrial environment
has had some degree of stability in the sense that
conditions on Earth variable have remained within certain limits that
have allowed the evolution of complex life forms such as
fishes and fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. In the
immediate future, all self prop systems on this planet, including
self propagating human groups and any purely machine based systems
derived from them, will have evolved while conditions have remained
within these same limits, or at most within somewhat wider ones.
By proposition three, the Earth's self prop systems will have
become dependent for their survival on the fact that conditions
have remained within these limits. Large scale self human groups,
as well as any purely machine based self prop systems,
will be dependent also on conditions of more recent origin
relating to the way the world system is organized, for example,
conditions pertaining to economic relationships. The rapidity with which these
conditions change must remain within certain limits, else the self
prop systems will not survive. This doesn't mean that all
the world's self prop systems will die if future conditions
or the rapidity with which they change slightly exceed some
of these limits, but it does mean that if conditions
go far enough beyond some of the limits, many self
prop systems are likely to die, and if conditions ever
vary widely enough outside of the limits, then with near certainty,
all of the world's more complex self prop systems will
die without progeny. With several self prop systems of global reach,
armed with the colossal powers of modern technology and competing
for immediate power while exercising no self restraint from concern
for long term consequences, it is extremely difficult to imagine
that conditions on this planet will be pushed far outside
of all earlier limits and battered around erratically, with the
result that all of the Earth's more complex self prop
systems will die without progeny.
Speaker 6: Notice, yeah, this is what I mean. I think the
point that he made earlier around proposition three, that he
said there about the self we're all dependent on the
fact that we've remained in these limits. I mean, like
the Western world has been more or less conditioned since
like the fourteen hundreds, right the post you know, Black
death world of like exploration proto global commerce, a global economy,
territorial like disputes and empire like the Western world is
still used to that five hundred years on or six
hundred years on, and so like I a world without
empire or a world without like that kind of like
superstructure that we all kind of take for granted, like
nations rise, like power is acquired, capital flows. I don't
know a system that we have today, at least in
the West that would be like, yeah, we could probably survive,
you know, if that were to disappear tomorrow, like or
even the rigidity of like and again, like it goes
back to things other than I think about like nuclear war,
things like that, you know, like what survives that we
don't know because we've never pushed the earth to those limits.
And he kind of points that out at the last
part that you read to like you're probably not going
to have any progeny because we're only used to existing
for hundreds, if not thousands of years now under these
specific systems.
Speaker 1: Right, you know, I'm I was as he was talking
about small systems, I was thinking about a certain country
in the Middle East that seems to control all of
these systems and how that, I mean, the most the
most important systems that we have Basically they have people
on you know, at the top of and how that is, uh,
how that affects all of this because I mean, Ted's
a boomer. He's not gonna he's not going to talk
about that, you know, He's he's not going to bring
that up because he no.
Speaker 3: No, But.
Speaker 1: That makes it all the more dangerous because really when
you look at it, our world systems are centralized under
one spirit.
Speaker 3: Of the age.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and it's very prominent no matter where you go
that there's that. I mean even in the East, right,
Like even in like sort of the I mean they're
sort of the only ones that haven't had as much
in culturation to that world system. I mean, like this
is where you'll you'll see people say things like based
China or like third positionist or nas bowls will tell
you that like you know, socialism with Chinese or capitalism
with like Chinese characteristics or something like that. Like if
you are a more or less like homogenized self prop
system of say like the already ethnic group inside China
right that governs things, you want to make sure that
you don't fall into a proper you know, a self
profit prop system that can infiltrate, subvert takeover. So I
mean even Japan is like this with that respects to
immigration and things like that. I mean you know, human
biology is going to still play a role here at
the root of all things, and so like, yes, Japan
and India and China, like eventually they're all going to
have huge demographic problems. The question becomes like, can those
self prop systems survive under technological society? So far, I'm
not seeing a very positive answer out of any Eastern
Asian country. But I mean, at the same time, right,
like you also lose what gave you the initial advantage
or the initial identity or the initial you know, ways
and means of that system even working from happening once
you diversify. I mean, how effective is any sort of
like we were talking about democracy earlier, Like how effective
is democracy the more you diversify it? Like every study
that has ever been done illustrates that no diversity decreases
civic engagement, public trust. People become more shut ins, they
don't trust people, and they become more dependent on like
law and order if it's even there, which devolves an anarchotyranny.
Like you know, once you diversify something, you kill the
self prop system from propagating.
Speaker 1: Right, But it also seems like if you're in charge
and you do that, there's no place for anyone to
run other than to you for solutions. So you're actually,
in some way, at least temporarily self propagating your existence
within that system.
Speaker 6: Yeah, you are, and and I mean we're seeing that
right now inside the US right as we're recording. Right,
you have that title forty two stuff and the you know,
El Paso and all the borders just absolute disaster. And
like that's cool. If you're in charge in Washington, you
can bean counts or play with this. But you know, again,
it goes back to what Dozinski talked about earlier, Like,
you know, you punish yourself in the long term because
you're only thinking about short term political gain.
Speaker 4: All right, let's move on.
Speaker 1: Yeah, notice that the crucial factor here is the available
of rapid worldwide transportation and communication, as a consequence of
which there exists global self prop systems. There is another
way of seeing that this situation will lead to the
radical disruption of the world system. Students of industrial accidents
know that a system is most likely to suffer a
catastrophic breakdown when one the system is highly complex, meaning
that small disruptions can produce unpredictable consequences, and two tightly linked,
meaning that a breakdown in one part of the system
spreads quickly to other parts. The world system has been
highly complex for a long time. The new factory is
that of rapid worldwide transportation and communication, as a result
of which the world system and all global self prop
systems are now tightly linked. Until recently, until relatively recently,
self prop systems were local phenomena, hence the destructive effects
of their competition. Also, hence, the destructive effects of their
competition also were usually locally. We're usually local today because
global self prop systems compete worldwide, because they are tightly linked,
because the world system as a whole is tightly linked,
and because technology provides global self prop systems with colossal power,
global disaster sooner or later is a near certainty.
Speaker 6: And obviously this just interlinks with like Tainer and Verrillio
again right like complex societies do have ways and means
in which they can collapse. But that also means that
the faster you accelerate or grow or self profit, the
likelhood that those effects will be global in their destruction.
Speaker 1: And obvious answer to the foregoing arguments will be to
assert that destructive competition among global self prop systems isn't inevitable.
A single global self prop system might succeed in eliminating
all of its competitors and thereafter dominate the world alone.
Speaker 4: Or, because global.
Speaker 1: Self prop systems would be relatively few in number, they
might come to an agreement among themselves, whereby they would
refrain from all dangerous or destructive forms of competition. However,
while it is easy to talk about such an agreement,
it is vastly more difficult to actually concede, to conclude
one and enforce it. Just look, the world's leading powers
today have not been able to agree on the elimination
of war, or of nuclear weapons, or on the limitation
of emissions of carbon dioxide. But let's be optimistic and
assume that the world has come under the domination of
a single unified system, which may consist of a single
global self prop system victorious over all its rivals, and
may be a composite of several global self prop systems
that have found themselves together through an agreement that eliminates
all destructive competition among them. The resulting world peace will
be unstable for three separate reasons. First, the world system
will be highly complex and tightly linked second, prior to
the arrival of world peace, and for the sake of
their own survival and propagation, the self prop subsystems of
a given global self prop system, their supersystem will have
put aside or at least moderated their mutual conflicts in
order to present a united front against any immediate external
threats or challenges to the supersystem, which are also threats
or challenges to themselves. In fact, the supersystem would never
have been successful enough to become a global self prop
system if petition between its most powerful self prop subsystems
had not been moderated.
Speaker 6: I mean, had not been moderated. So I mean, in
this instance they are moderated rules of the economy, international law,
United Nations. I'm just I'm trying to think where that
might be from or where that might come from in
this respect, right, Like you know, in his mind, his
optimistic assumption world peace like a single unified system or
something like okay, total global homo victory. Well, how do
you accomplish that? Well, if it requires moderation from other
power competitions, then you know, global infrastructure like the WTOUN
would be the ways to do it. And I mean
the UN is already a political battlefield as it is
where nations by for influence in like general assembly votes
and stuff. And I've always cited the like when the
war started, Like I just told people, like, look at
the United Nations vote that condemns Russia, Like look at
like the thirty five or so abstentions, And that's when
you can really see where the power play is being
held here. So yeah, I mean, global self prop systems
will be interesting, especially like what subsystems are we dealing with?
What are they being moderated with? And I mean you're
going to have to do it right lest we somehow
with the highly complex, tightly linked world system. You know,
unless everyone in China nowadays is like a you know,
a furry appreciator or something, right like, I don't know
how you could make like one total leveling world system.
I don't think can happen. You'd still be reliant on
global subsystems that you know, you formerly defeated.
Speaker 1: But once a global self prop system has eliminated its
competitors or has entered into an agreement that frees it
from dangerous competition from other global self prop systems, there
will no longer be an immediate external threat to induce
unity or a moderation of conflict among the self prop systems,
and view of proper proposition two, which tells us that
self prop systems will compete with little regard for long
term consequences. Unrestrained and therefore destructive competition will break out
among the most powerful sub subsystems of the global self
prop system in question. This argument, of course, assumes that
the most powerful subprop systems will be intelligent enough to
distinguish between a situation in which their supersystem is subject
to an immediate external threat and a situation in which
their supersystem is not subject to an immediate external threat.
The assumption, however, seems highly probable. Benjamin Franklin pointed out
that the great affairs of the world, the war's revolutions, etc.
Or the war's revolutions and are carried out on and
affected by parties. Each of the parties, according to Franklin,
is pursuing its own collective advantage. But as soon as
a party has gained its general point and therefore presumably
no longer faces immediate conflict with an external adversary, each
member becomes intent upon his particular interests which thwarting others
breaks that party into divisions and occasions confusion.
Speaker 6: I mean you see this anytime that there's a coup
or a successful business organization being made. You know, there's
a fight with the founders and so on and so forth.
I mean, this is the kind of factionalism that was
concerning towards George Washington and so on. I mean, you know,
nless we encounter you know, immediate external existential threats like
asteroids or whatever, like, it's not it's not like, you know,
we're going to achieve some kind of unifying world system.
I mean, there's going to be people at the top
that fight for each other. We still see this with
inter elite fighting in America. So yeah, so far dead on.
Speaker 1: Franklin's statement doubtless represents somewhat of an op simplification, but
history does generally confirm that when large human groups are
not held together by an immediate external challenge, they tend
strongly to break up into factions that compete with one another,
regardless of long term consequences. What we are arguing here
is that this does not apply only to human groups,
but expresses a tendency of self propagating systems in general
as they develop under the influence of natural selection. Thus,
the tendency is independent of any flaws of character peculiar
to human beings, and the tendency will persist even if
humans are cured of their purported defects or are replaced
by intelligent machines. Let's nevertheless assume that the most powerful
self prop subsystems of global self prop systems will not
begin to compete destructively when the external challenges to their
supersystem have been removed. There is still a third reason
why the kind of world piece described above will be
unstable by proposition one. Within the new peaceful world system,
new self prop systems will arise that, under the influence
of natural selection, will evolve increasingly subtle and sophisticated ways
of evading recognition, or, once they are recognized, evading suppression
by the dominant global self prop system By the same
process that led to the evolution of self prop systems
in the first place, new self prop systems of greater
and greater power will develop until some of the powerful
some are powerful enough to challenge the existing global self
prop systems, whereupon destructive competition on a global scale will resume.
Speaker 6: So a mix of like evolutionary biology, like eventually you're
going to adapt ways and means to not be caught
by predators. And even if you do right, and I
mean humans do this already, like we negotiate, we trade,
we find other means and alternatives to fighting, and now
you know that's how I build up power alliances Like
this is it's he's coming to these conclusions as if
it's like and this is just from what my own
reading and my own understanding of things, like he's coming
to this with like a bizarre like intersection of offensive
realism and international relations theory and like evolutionary biology, and
it's just very interesting to read. There's always going to
be those sentences, like we said at the beginning, that
are going to make you think, oh fuck.
Speaker 1: For the sake of clarity, we have described the process
in simplified form as if a world system relatively free
of dangerous competition would first be established and afterward would
be unknoone by new self prop systems that would arise.
But it's more likely that the new self prop systems
will be arising all along to challenge the existing global
self prop systems and will prevent the hypothesized world peace
from ever being from ever being there in the first place.
In fact, we can see that happening before our eyes.
The most crudely obvious of the relatively new self prop
systems are those that challenge law and order head on,
such as terrorist networks, drug cartels, and hacker groups anonymous
and now defunct lulzec. Such self prop systems not only
can disrupt the normal course of political life, as drug
cartels have done in Mexico and terrorists have done in
the United States. They even have the potential to take
control of important nations, as drug cartels arguably have come
close to doing in Kenya. A subordinate system that a
government creates for its own protection its military establishment can
turn into a self prop system in its own and
become dominant over the government, either replacing it through a
military coup or exercising effective power behind the scenes while
allowing the government to retain the appearance of full sovereign See.
Speaker 6: Funny like I mean power in these health prop systems,
like will find threats and infiltrator use it and I
mean anonymous nowadays really does seem nothing more right than
like some sort of fed up yeah so yeah, I mean,
these things can be done. And I mean we see
this with Mexico, right, Like how much of American guns
and dollars have gone south of the border to propagate
a system that keeps the Mexican government relatively weak?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, and it's.
Speaker 1: It seems to be by design. I mean, does the
does the United States or the people who you know
really run the United States want their partner to the north,
or the partner to the north, or their partner.
Speaker 4: To the south to be as strong as they are.
Speaker 6: Obviously that yeah, obviously they don't want to.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I remember and culture, like after nine to eleven they
were saying that Canada was going to join in the fight,
and she's Canada doesn't even need an army. Do you
think we'd allow, you know, we'd allow anything to happen to.
Speaker 4: Canada's all right? But bah, all right.
Speaker 1: Probably more significant that the president's at the present time
are emerging self prop systems that use entirely legal methods.
New corporations are continually being formed, some grow powerful enough
to challenge older corporations and game covert political power, and
those that try to keep their use of illegal methods
to a minimum, as in the case of the movement
to recently overthrow Hasni Mobarik and Egypt. Legal self prop
systems are especially important to those parts of the world
where democracy is firmly established, because democracy gives new groups
the opportunity to compete for and possibly win power by
legal means. Two competing entirely legal self prop systems that
have arisen in the US during the last several decades
are the politically correct left and the dogmatic right, not
to be confused with the liberals and conservatives of earlier
times in America. This essay is not the place to
speculate about the outcome of the struggle between these two forces.
Suffice it to say that in the long run, their
bitter conflict may be more may do more to prevent
the establishment of a lastingly peaceful world order than all
the bombs of Alcada and all the murders of the
Mexican drug gangs.
Speaker 4: Yeah yeah, yeah, well said, we know who won that.
Speaker 6: Uh yeah, we never won that one.
Speaker 1: Some people may imagine that it would be possible to
design and construct the world system in such a way
that the foregoing processes, processes leading to destructive competition would
not occur, but there are several reasons why such a
project could not could never be carried out in practice.
Here we mentioned only one of the One of the
reasons the extreme complexity that the world system would necessarily have,
and the impossibility of predicting, especially at long term, the
behavior of complex systems. It will be objected that a
mammal or other complex biological organism is a self prop
system that is compositive millions of other self prop systems,
namely the cells of its own body. Yet, unless and
until the animal can, unless and until the animal cancer,
no destructive competition arises among cells or groups of cells
within the animal's body. Instead, all the cells loyally serve
the interests of the animal as a whole. Moreover, no
external threat to the animal is necessary to keep the
cell faithful to their duty. There is, it will be argued,
no reason why the world system could not be as
well organized as the body of a mammal, so that
no destructive competition would arise among it among its self
prop systems.
Speaker 6: I'm very interested to hear his answer or his argument
for that.
Speaker 1: But the body of a mammal is a product of
hundreds of millions of years of evolution, through natural selection.
That means that it has been created through trial and
error process involving many millions of successive trials. If we
suppose the duration of a generation to be a period
of time delta, those members of the first generation that
contributed to the second generation by producing offspring were only
those that passed the test of selection over time delta.
Those lineages that survived to the third generation were only
those that were passed that passed the time of selection
over time to delta. Those lineages that survived to the
fourth generation were only those that passed the time test
of selection over time three delta, and so forth. Those
lineages that survived to the nth generation were only those
that passed the test of selection over the time interval
and to the one delta, as well as the test
of selection owned over every shorter time interval through the
Though the forego foregoing explanation is grossly simplified, it shows
that in order to have survived up to the present,
lineages of a lineage of organisms has to have passed
the test of selection many millions of times and over
and over all time intervals short, medium, and long. To
put in another way, the lineages of the lineage of
organisms has had to pass through a series of many
millions of fiber of filters, each of which has allowed
the passage only of those lineage that were fittest in
the Darwinian sense to survive over time intervals of widely
varying length. It is only through this process that the
body of a mammal has evolved, with its incredibly complex
and subtle mechanisms that promote the survival of the animal's
lineages at short, medium and long term. These mechanisms include
those that prevent destructive competition between cells or groups of
cells within the animal's body. But once self prop systems
have attained global scale, certain crucial differences emerge that make
the selection process highly inefficient.
Speaker 6: Yeah, this is the interesting part, right, Like, there are
global self prop systems out there. We see this in blocks,
we see this in superpowers, but these are still relatively new. Right,
And even if we got one major unified system that
he's talked about earlier, you know, how is that iterated?
How has that succeeded? And how do you keep everyone
from not rebelling against it?
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's.
Speaker 1: When you look at the average length of an empire,
you have to ask yourself when you compare it to
the evolution of a mammal as he's if it only
lasts three or four, you know, two or three hundred
years or at the most six hundred years, where you
in the six hundred year you're only seeing shadows of
what was started.
Speaker 6: Yeah, how.
Speaker 4: How fit of a system is that?
Speaker 1: And would the system be fitter if it was smaller
in size or you know, the once you become an empire,
is that the problem is the problem that you're with
the empire. With the growth of an empire, you're allowing
more cancer cells to come and it does.
Speaker 4: Raise a lot of questions.
Speaker 6: Well, it's also like the argument that why we see
so much of the West have like an epidemic of
autoimmune disorders. Right, It's as though, like we live in
cleaner environments, we live in a more highly processed enriched
thing like the rise of like gluten allergies because our
process bred has like hundreds, if not thousands of times
more gluten particulates inside than it ever did before with
bread in the past. So, I mean, you know, that's
the other thing too, is like, well, why wouldn't you
have cancerous cells or things that are deliberately bad for you.
That would kill the empire. And I mean, like that's
where you get the traditional moral argument that like once
the nation loses its chriacter, loses that moral.
Speaker 4: Drive, then it dies, you know.
Speaker 6: And I think you see that with Spangler, you see
that Tainter, you see that with numerous others and commentaries
about Rome, that hey, once you give up the ghost
on morality, religion tradition. Even in like an evolutionary psyche thing,
a lot of people say that the earliest religions were
meant to promote pro social behavior and behaviors that were hygienic.
So I mean in this respect, right, Like, I don't
know how you do that with a global system, Like yeah,
we'll we're going to roll all over the world, but
we're gonna let like the highly clean, immaculate Silicon Valley
people also you know, live in the same places with
like you know, there's feces all over the street. Like
those things aren't compatible, like the not long term.
Speaker 4: All right, So I think I'm gonna read this again.
Speaker 1: But once self prop systems of attaining global scale, certain
crucial differences emerge that make the selection process highly inefficient.
Speaker 4: I don't remember if I'd read that, yeah, yeah, no worries.
Speaker 1: First at each trial. In the process of trial and era,
that is evolution through natural selection, there are too few
individuals from among which to select the fittest in a
biological species. These ordinarily are at the least several million individuals,
from among which the fittest in each generation are selected
by their ability to survive and reproduce self prop systems
sufficiently big and powerful to be plausible. Contenders with global
dominance will probably number in the dozens or possibly in
the hundreds. They will they certainly will not number in
the millions. Second, in the absence of rapid worldwide trans
transportation and communication, the breakdown of the destructive action of
a small group self prop system has only local repercussions.
But where rapid worldwide transportation and communication have led to
the emergence of global self prop systems, the breakdown of
the destructive action of anyone of anyone such system shakes
the entire world system. Consequently, in the process of the
trial and error that is evolution through natural selection, it
is highly probable that after only a relatively small number
of trials resulting in errors, the world system will break
down or be so severely disrupted that none of the
world's larger or more complex self prop systems will be
able to survive see proposition three. Thus, for such self
prop systems, the trial and error process comes to an end.
Evolution through natural selection cannot continue long enough to create
global self prop systems possessing the subtle and sophisticated mechanisms
that prevent destructive internal competition without complex biological organisms.
Speaker 6: So yeah, so the gene pool of these systems, then
it won't succeed in creating a fit, unifying global superstructure
very I mean a clear cut right there, right. If
the gene pool isn't big enough, you win breed or
you fall apart and die.
Speaker 4: And I think this is why what website are we on?
Reading this from the anarchist library Archist Library.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think the anarchist argument would be, well,
if this is never going to work, why would we
why would we keep trying?
Speaker 4: I will go on, she got your question right, there's
a black pill.
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, the fierce competition among global self prop systems will
have led to such drastic and rapid alterations in the
Earth's climate, the composition of its atmosphere, the chemistry of
its oceans, and so forth, that among biological species, none
will be left alive, accept maybe some of the simplest organisms,
certainly bacteria, algae, and the like, that are capable of
surviving under extreme conditions. The theory we've outlined here provides
a plausible explanation for the so called Fermi paradox. It
is believed that there should be numerous planets on which
technological advanced such civilizations have evolved, and which are not
so remote from us that we could not by this
time have detected the radio transmissions of those civilizations. The
Fermi paradox consist in the fact that our astronomers have
never been able to detect any radio signals that seem
to have originated from an intelligent extraterrestrial source. According to
Ray Kurzweil, one common explanation of the Fermi paradox is
that a civilization may obliterate itself once it reaches radio capability.
The explanation might be acceptable if we were talking about
only a few such civilizations, but if such civilizations have
been numerous, it is not credible to believe that every
one of them destroyed itself. For as while would be
right if the self destruction of a civilization were merely
a matter of chance, But there is nothing implausible about
the foregoing explanation of the Fermi paradox if there is
a process common to all technologically advanced civilizations that consistently
leads them to self destruction. In this essay we have
argued that there is such a process.
Speaker 6: Done a good job of making that argument.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Part two is basically like sex paragraphs, So yeah,
we can basically wrap up.
Speaker 6: Yeah, we can run right through it.
Speaker 1: Our discussion of self propagating systems merely describes, in general
and abstract terms what we see going on all around
us in concrete form. Organizations, movements, ideologies are locked in
an unremitting struggle for power. Those that fail to compete
successfully are eliminated or subjugated. The struggle is almost exclusively
or power in the short term. The competitors pay scant
attention even to their own long term survival, let alone
the welfare of the human race or of the biosphere.
That's why nuclear weapons have not been banned, Emissions of
carbon dioxide have not been reduced to a safe level.
The arts resources are being exploited at an utterly reckless rate,
and no limitation has been placed on the development of
powerful but dangerous technologies. The purpose of describing the process
in general and abstract terms, as we've done here is
to show that what is happening to our world is
not accidental. It is not the result of some chance
conjunction of historical circumstances, or of some flaw of character
peculiar to human beings. Given the nature of self propagating
systems in general, the destructive process that we see today
is made inevitable by a combination of two factors, the
colossal power of modern technology and the availability of rapid
trans rotation and communication between any two parts of the world.
Recognition of this may help us to avoid wasting time
on naive efforts to solve all our current problems, For example,
on efforts to teach people to conserve energy and resources.
Such efforts accomplish nothing whatsoever. Excuse me, it seems amazing
that those who advocate energy conservation haven't noticed what happens.
As soon as some energy is freed up by conservation,
the technological world system gobbles it up and demands more.
No matter how much energy is provided, the system always
expands rapidly until it is using all available energy, and
then it demands still more. The same is true of
other resources. The technological world system infallibly expands until it
reaches a limit imposed by an insufficiency of resources, and
then it tries to push beyond that limit, regardless of consequence.
Speaker 6: Reminds me very much of why Meerscheimer famously titled his
book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, because nations will
push for more influence insufficient of political capital or military
will to do so, and that's how you lead to
great power conflict. And it's a tragedy because it's been
echoed throughout all of civilized history. And he's making this
point just on a nature of how our world system operates.
Speaker 1: This is explained by the theory of self propagating systems.
Those organizations or other self prop systems that least allow
respect for environment to interfere with their pursuit of power
here and now tend to acquire more power than those
that limit their pursuit of power from concern about what
will happen to our environment fifty years from now or
even ten years proposition two. Thus, through a process of
natural selection, the world comes to be dominated by organizations
that make maximum use of all available resources to augment
their own power without regard to long term consequences. Environmental
do gooders may answer that if the public had been
persuaded to take environmental concerns seriously, it will be disadvantageous
in terms of natural selection for an organization to abuse
the environment, because because citizens can offer resistance to environmentally
reckless organizations. For example, people might refuse to buy products
manufactured by companies that are environmentally destructive. However, human behavior
and human attitudes can be manipulated. Environmental damage can be shielded,
up to a point from public scrutiny. With the help
of public relations firms, a corporation can persuade people that
it is environmentally responsible. Advertising and marketing techniques can give
people such an itch to possess a corporation's products that
few individuals were refused to buy, that few individuals will
refused to buy them from concern for the environment. Computer games,
electronic social networking, and other mechanisms of escape keep people
absorbed in hedonistic pursuits so that they don't have time
for environmental worries.
Speaker 6: More important, rand diarity of one of the Netflix founders
being related to Bernes.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't think there's irony there, just.
Speaker 6: No, probably not, But I mean the sake of this
tragedy that he's outlying here.
Speaker 4: Yah.
Speaker 1: More importantly, people are made to see themselves as utterly
dependent on the products and services provided by the corporations.
Because people have to earn money to buy the products
and services on which they are dependent, they need jobs.
Economic growth is necessary for the creation of jobs. Therefore,
people accept environmental damage when it is portrayed as a
price that must be paid for economic growth. Nationalism, too,
is brought into play by both corporations and by governments.
Citizens are made to feel that outside forces are threatening.
The Chinese will get ahead of us if we don't
increase our rate of economic growth. Al Qaeda will blow
us up if we don't improve our technology and our
weaponry fast enough.
Speaker 6: Just like what we talked about earlier with AI arms races.
There you go.
Speaker 1: These are some of the tools that organizations use to
counter environmentalists efforts to arouse public concern. Similar tools can
help to blunt other forms of resistance to the organization's
pursuit of power. The organizations that are most successful in
blunting public resistance to their pursuit or power tend to
increase their power more rapidly than organizations that are less
successful in blunting public resistance to their power seeking activities,
whatever the degree of environmental damage involved. Because such organizations
have great wealth at their disposal, environmentalists do not have
the resources to compete with them in the propaganda war.
This is the reason, or important part of the reason,
why attempts to teach people to be environmentally responsible have
done so little to slow the destruction of our environment.
And again, note well, the process we've described is not
contingent on an accidental set of circumstances or on any
defect in human character. Given the availability of advanced technology,
the process of inevitability. Of inevitability accompanies the action of
natural selection upon self propagating systems.
Speaker 6: Here we go.
Speaker 1: It's it's tough to read Ted because his arguments are
clear and they're logical, and there's an incredible amount of
truth in them.
Speaker 6: Yeah, if you want, if you want your black pil
go go read Ted Kaczynski right in this in this respect,
and you know, and he's highlighting almost like a cold
hard evolutionary fact because mankind has been assisted and then
inculcated and as a part of this environment for four
hundred years of industrial revolution. That that is how we operate.
It's how we you know, live in the world. And
if we were to break wildly from that or resist
against it, you know, the wealth that has been accrued
by the powers that be really wants you to stay
on track, so you're dependent on them, and that becomes
the nature of political realism is how do you accrue power,
ascertain it and you know, centralize it and grow it.
And that growth is great for the short term and
democracy is like the epitome of this, right, Like we've
got such a high time preference reelections every two years.
Most of politicians found calls are with owners. There's no
long term care about this because every aspect of environmentalism
is some form just more globalism and not actual respects
to the environment. And that's why you get autistic child celebrities,
you know, telling you to you know, how dare you?
And my life's been ruined because of you, while you know,
most of the world's plastic polluters are by developing economies
that are trying to catch up and keep up with
it in their own form of self propagating systems. Is
why China and India are the world's largest polluters and
the West has actually decreased as it's continued to evolve technologically.
But you know, those he outlines very succinctly what kind
of world we're living in and that you know, the
propaganda machine is going to be ahead of you because
you do not have a billion dollars and you are
not like the great you know, the Grand Center whatever
descend into Eddie Burnet's.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know, as of like four or five
years ago, the greatest polluter on the planet was the
US military. And how do you argue, oh, let's reduce
the military. You immediately get from both sides, from every side.
Speaker 4: So what do you want us to do?
Speaker 1: The burn the burn pits that they do, everything from
bombs they drop, I mean basically everything.
Speaker 4: Anyone who.
Speaker 1: I've talked to veterans and just the stuff that they've seen.
There's the stuff that's been thrown overboard into the ocean
and office ships.
Speaker 3: And what do you do.
Speaker 4: When you're living for the moment you're when that.
Speaker 1: Government basically demands, especially democratic government, demands high time preference,
So what do you do? Hopa talked about it in
democracy the God that failed. At least if you have
a monarchy, you in most cases you had a king
that wanted to preserve something, conserve something to hand down
to their progeny. We don't have that anymore. We have
people who get elected for two years and they go
in there and they try and loot as much as possible.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean that's the point that even Nick Land
was writing about in the Dark Enlightenment. It's just like,
I don't know if I'm ever going to be in
power again, so I might as well loot the treasury
for more power, and you know, screwed the consequences. And
we see that now. And I mean, like I said earlier,
like this is the nice, the weird and really black
pilling intersection of sort of social and evolutionary psychology with
like political realism, especially in international relations, because if you're
a high time preference empire preserving institution that happens to
be a democracy, then any long term sociological or ecological
disaster be damned because right now I don't know how
much power I have. Before the Chinese launched surprise attack,
or something right like, those are the things that you
have to keep in mind. And if you are capable
of low time preference, long term planning, you camouflage yourself
and do you do well to exert political influence wherever
you can, like certain countries. Do you know right now?
Speaker 1: Yeah, this really is TED really is the ultimate black pill,
because you know, we both know people who are completely
black pilled about American politics.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and this is global, this is existence. It's how
do you what do you do at this point?
Speaker 1: You know, It's like I've I mean, this may not
be the greatest observation, but to me, when you see people,
you know, I know people myself who just left the
city and gone to smaller town and now I'm going
to an even smaller town, and in so doing, I'm
basically using a modified form of TED, a modified form
of what TED advocates for is to just go back
and get simpler, useless, and get away from technology basically,
you know. And yeah, it's uh, that's the hard the
hard part about doing about talking about TED is is
there is no uh, what's the hope, what's the yeah,
what's the answer to all this?
Speaker 6: Yeah, there's not a lot of uh, you know, platitudes
or polite dispensations. When it comes to reading Ted, it's
more of this is the cold hard analysis that I've
outlined and you're one man, remember that, and the it
seems hopeless, right and it you know it is this
also feels like something that you should read with Man
and Technics by Spangler because he kind of also highlights
this is like it's in mankind's nature to you know,
resist against it, and that fight is hopeless, but mankind
is going to fight it out to the bitter end.
And coward you know, optimism is cowardice, so acknowledged, be
thoroughbred and do what you can do right in the
midst of this, because mankind will continue to evolve alongside
its machines. It's technics as the tools for survival. And
if that means you know, a bunch of schizophrenic you know,
attension spam addled, you know, consumers that are running the
government now rely on like chat GPT to do things,
then like we're you know, I wouldn't be optimistic either.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know, he says in Man and Technics he
says optimism is cowardice. Doesn't he also say ideology is
ideology is weakness or ideology is cowardness.
Speaker 6: He makes a point about ideology if I remember it correctly.
We just covered this on my patron book Club. But
that you know, those are also you know, so they're
like social technics that help govern us for survival or
along and motivates people to do things in a certain way,
like it's how we've evolved. So it'd be very interesting
to read this side by side with man and technics.
I might do that very soon, actually reread it again,
because I mean, like, like we said, like when I
picked out this one when we were going I was
going through other of Ted's works, I was like, this
one is the one worth discussing the most, because you see,
it reminds me of.
Speaker 2: H.
Speaker 6: Greer's bit in in Retrotopia that you can't force regression
because other nations will pursue it regardless, right, or you
can't regress because people like the technological comforts they've evolved
with them. And you know the answer like he says,
you can't force it, and in Ted Kaczinski here is
just like, well, you can't force it because it's it's
an inevitability on a global scale and you're one guy.
You know, it all comes together in this nice large
horse pill sized black pill.
Speaker 3: So brutal.
Speaker 4: Yeah, plug plug what you want to plug on?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 4: Uh, I know you're busy today.
Speaker 6: Oh yeah, no prarise well they once again Pete for
having me on. You can find me on YouTube, Telegram, Twitter,
substack Odyssey is the Podentialist. All of my links can
be found at findmifriends dot net, slash The Prudentialist. I
cover politics, culture, and primarily international relations, with the dose
of fishing in between. And as always it's great to
talk Ted Kaczinski with you.
Speaker 4: Thanks Rude, appreciate it.
Speaker 3: No problem.