Technological Slavery Reading #1
Theodore Kaczynski....The writings of the Unibomber
Support the show:
https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US
Buy Grow kit:
https://modernmushroomcultivation.com/
This Band willl Blow your Mind!
Codex Serafini:
https://codexserafini.bandcamp.com/album/the-imprecation-of-anima
https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US
Buy Grow kit:
https://modernmushroomcultivation.com/
This Band willl Blow your Mind!
Codex Serafini:
https://codexserafini.bandcamp.com/album/the-imprecation-of-anima
Transcript:
https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/57320536
Speaker 0 (0s): Your skin is technological. <inaudible> free
Speaker 1 (11s): Industrial society and its future.
Speaker 0 (18s): Okay.
Speaker 1 (19s): For those of you that are not aware of mr. Kaczynski, he was the Unibomber and Harvard graduates graduate. Have a, I believe he was in the Harvard LSD studies is Well mathematician turned in by his brother and he had some fascinating ideas on the future of technology. And that's what we're going to get into his philosophy and get into some of his ideas and kind of go through and point out some areas in which he may have been correct in some ways in which he may have not been correct.
So it should be fun. I, I, I find his writings to be peculiar in their authenticity. It seems they're very genuine. What he's saying is something he truly believes, and he presents a lot of evidence to back it up. And it's a, it is a new angle that is rarely spoken up.
So without getting too much further into the weeds, let's just go ahead and start it here. The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life expectancy of those of us who live in advanced countries, but they have destabilized. A society have made life unfulfilling have subjected human beings to indignities have led to widespread psychological suffering in the third world to physical suffering as well and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world.
The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to a greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world. They will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering, even in advanced countries and a lot in their right. Let's just go over a little bit of it here. Would you agree that it has destabilized society?
I would think so. The ever widening gap in education finance literacy health clearly has been radicalized during the industrial revolution. Has it subjected human beings to indignities? Well, I think we all have added to that.
I'm talking to you on an iPhone and I have phones made at Fox con in China where people live in the building's like dorms and they have nets outside there Dwellings so that people don't jump off the roof and kill themselves or so that when people jump off the roof, they land at a net.
Speaker 2 (3m 43s): It is
Speaker 1 (3m 45s): To be fair, quite unfulfilling. And I think a lot of people are subjected to indignities, although it's not just in the third world. I mean, increasingly in advanced societies in the United States, people that are treated like cogs and wheels and they are treated as if they are numbers, instead of people, It does definitely inflicted severe damage on the natural.
And it's, it's odd. It's, you know, the, the promise of tech is that it will, it we'll make the world a better, however, there has been continued development. However, the way it has worked in the situation, I mean, It clear cutting of forest. You could argue that fracking has made us energy independent. However, it's also a polluted. A lot of water, The industrial technological system may survive, or it may break down.
If it survives, it may eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment, and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs and the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives the consequences, we'll be inevitable. There is no way of reforming or modifying the system.
So as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and a tie,
Speaker 2 (5m 32s): I mean,
Speaker 1 (5m 37s): I think we were at those crossroads right now. Are we going to see the industrial technological system survive? Or is it going to break down? If the system breaks down on the consequences will still be very painful, but the bigger the system grows, the more disastrous results or its breakdown will be. So if it is to break down, it had best breakdown sooner rather than later.
Now here is what Kaczynski was advocating for. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. Just revolution may or may not make use of violence. It may be sudden, or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can't predict any of that, but we do outline in a very general way, the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society.
This is not to be a political revolution. Its object will be to overthrow, not governments, but the economic and technological basis of the present society.
Speaker 2 (6m 52s): Friday
Speaker 1 (6m 55s): In this article, we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial technological systems, such developments. We mentioned only briefly or ignore all together. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant for practical reasons. We have to confine our discussion too, areas that have received insufficient public attention on in which we have something new to say, for example, since they were a well-developed environmental degradation, I'm sorry, since there are a well-developed environmental and a wilderness movement's we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.
Speaker 2 (7m 46s): Okay. Okay. So
Speaker 1 (7m 51s): No, just remember I'm reading here. I'm going to give you some commentary. Of course I don't endorse all of these thoughts. However, I think his thoughts are important enough to lay out there. The psychology of modern leftism. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world
Speaker 2 (8m 14s): Is leftism.
Speaker 1 (8m 16s): So the discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general. But what is leftism during the first half of the 20th century, leftism could practically have been identified with socialism today. The movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftist in this article, in this article, in this article, we have in mind, mainly socialists, collectivists, politically, correct types, gay and disability, activists, animal rights, activists, and the like, but not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist.
When we are trying to get at, in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type or rather a collection of related types. This is what we mean by leftism will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussions of leftist psychology, even. So our conception of leftism will remain a good deal, less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this.
All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way. The two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We, by no means claim to be telling the whole truth about leftist psychology. Also our discussion is meant to aptly. Also our discussion has been to apply to modern leftism. Only we leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftist of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism, we call feelings of inferiority and over socialization, feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism. As a whole, while over socialization is characteristic only have a certain segment of modern leftism, but this segment is highly influential
Speaker 2 (10m 47s): Feelings of inferiority
Speaker 1 (10m 52s): Has that has, is there a person out there that has never felt inferior? I think that's part of the human condition, right? I mean, It seems like how everybody has that feeling. It just comes down to how you deal with that feeling. It's important to know that there is always going to be someone better than you. There's always going to be someone smarter than you. There's always going to be someone working harder than you and that, but that also probably means that your better than some people, that you're working harder than other people that you are smarter than other people are a good rule of thumb is to think that you're probably not the best.
And you're definitely not the worst. You're probably somewhere in the middle and yeah, you're inferior in a lot of ways, just the vast number of people on this planet. And if you want to try to find a support group, because you are so inferior, like stop trying to find a support group and start getting better at things, find something that you love to do and get good at it. That's all you got to do. You'll you'll decrease those feelings of inferiority
Speaker 2 (12m 11s): By
Speaker 1 (12m 11s): Feelings of inferiority. We mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense, but a whole spectrum of related traits, low self-esteem feelings of powerlessness, depressive, tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self hatred, et cetera. We argue that modern left is tend to have some such feelings possibly more or less repressed, and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
I would agree. I think that's accurate when someone interprets as derogatory, almost anything that is said about him or about groups with whom he identifies, we conclude that he has an inferiority feelings of low self esteem. Have you ever met anybody like that? Like, no matter what you say, they take it as like a slur against them all. Are you saying this also, what you're saying is this over that Arctic that you guys ever see the interview with Jordan Peterson in the young lady, from the, the European lady over there, they were like in this debate and she just kept trying to frame what he was saying is, so what you're saying is, so what you're saying is, so what you're saying is, and he was like, no, that's what your saying.
I didn't say any of that. What you're trying to do is just take what I said, completely change it around and then throw it back to me. Like it was my word. He's like, that's a complete logical fallacy. It's a fan. It's a, it's a fascinating debate actually. And I think it underscores what this gentleman's talking about. Actually, I'd try to, I'll try to put a link in the show notes so you guys can check it out. It's, it's fascinating to see an example of exactly what this guy's talking about. And she would totally fit the category of a leftist.
This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups, whose rights they defend. Remember Rachel dazzle like the white girl she's in charge of the whole Africa. And she was in charge of like a, a minority group somewhere, but she wasn't even in the minority, this tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups, who's rites, they defend, they are. Hyper-sensitive about the words you use to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities, the terms Oriental handicapped, or
Speaker 2 (14m 45s): Okay
Speaker 1 (14m 47s): For an African and Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally, no derogatory connotation, broad and CIC were merely the feminine equivalents of guy, dude, or fellow the negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word pet and insist on as a replacement by animal companion leftish leftish anthropologists, go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive people's that could conceivably be interpreted as negative.
They want to replace the word primitive with non-literate. They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures are inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftist anthropologists. Those who are most sensitive about politically incorrect terminology or not the average black ghetto dweller 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 a privileged strata of society.
Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors who have secure employment and comfortable salaries. And the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle to upper class. That's fascinating to think about. I was recently watching a video and it was a mess. It was a panel of people from the world health organization and they were all white people. Well, every one of them, and they were talking about development in the United States.
And this gentleman from Harvard who was a white guy, probably middle, mid fifties. I mean, I don't know how much Harvard professors make, but lets say he's making, he's got to be making over a, a a hundred thousand. He's probably has some side gigs where he goes and speaks. He had mentioned multiple books that he's written, let's say he's doing 300 K a year.
And what this gentleman was talking about was how and how unfair it is for white people to have such privilege. Okay. And I think about what I'd have said, here's a white guy teaching at a prestigious school, making tons of money, selling books, talking about how unfair it is for white people to do what he does now.
He never wants in that discussion, advocated, stepping down. He never once said, you know what? I should move aside and allow someone else to have my position. What he said was
Speaker 2 (18m 2s): Has that uneducated white people, people that don't teach at Harvard people that don't write books, people that don't have his level of privilege
Speaker 1 (18m 17s): But are white. These people are white nationalists in these people are all racist and they're the problem with America.
Speaker 2 (18m 27s): And it was,
Speaker 1 (18m 27s): Yeah, it was like, I've had to watch it a few times. Just this guy is, it was like the ultimate irony. Like here's this guy
Speaker 2 (18m 36s): That is
Speaker 1 (18m 37s): Saying to the world, Hey, white people are the huge problem. They have all this fucking privilege. And this is the guy that had the most. And instead of taking a look in the mirror and saying will do, why don't you step aside? Then he was just aiming all his anger towards people in potentially like poor neighborhoods or people that have lower incomes or Maybe people that didn't have as much education as he
Speaker 2 (19m 6s): She had. And so, you know,
Speaker 1 (19m 9s): And it just seems to me to be a part of P part of the problem, you know what I mean? Like it just seems to me to be,
Speaker 2 (19m 18s): For me, it was just odd. It was really odd back to the book.
Speaker 1 (19m 26s): Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak, defeated repellent or otherwise inferior. The leftist themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, minorities are inferior.
We are only making a point about leftist psychology. That's an interesting point to see these other groups,
Speaker 2 (20m 12s): To see a lot of other groups
Speaker 1 (20m 16s): As in for you. I mean, that's like, Ew, if you feel you have to protect people than you feel like you're a superior to them. Like I should help out these people because I'm better than them. Or, you know, it's, it's,
Speaker 2 (20m 30s): That's a logical fallacy, right?
Speaker 1 (20m 34s): A feminist 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 is capable of this. Man. 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. Let me just pause here for a minute. This is not my life. I'm not saying I'm reading this book.
These are not my thoughts. My thoughts to the commentary that goes by. But just for anybody listening to me, the word, all the words you hear at are not mine. I'm reading this book. So don't judge me too hard on this. All right. Let me just need 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 that left is a gift for hating the West, et cetera, clearly do not correspond with that.
A real motives. They say they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric, and so forth. But where are the same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive culture is the leftist finds excuses for them or at best he grudgingly admits that they exist. Whereas he enthusiastically points out and often greatly exaggerates these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus, it is clear that these faults are not the leftists real motive for hating America and the West.
He hates America and the West because there are strong and successful work like self-confidence self-reliance initiative, enterprise optimism, et cetera, play a little roll in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti individualistic, pro collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's problems for them, satisfy everyone's needs for them. Take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs.
The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because deep inside, he feels like a loser
Speaker 2 (22m 54s): <inaudible>
Speaker 1 (22m 57s): Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to focus on sordid, newness, defeat, and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone throwing off a rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation. And all of that were left were to immerse oneself in the sensation of the moment. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason science objective reality, and to insist at everything is culturally relative.
It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all the concept of our objective reality can be defined, but it is obvious modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logistician, magicians, systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in the attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs.
For one thing that the attack is an outlet for hostility and to be the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hate science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true I IE, successful superior and other beliefs as false. I have failed inferior. The leftist feelings of inferiority runs so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification, have some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior.
This also underlies that rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Left is prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus, if a person is inferior, it is not his fault, but societies because he has not been brought up properly, that's the kind of the whole epigenetics debate, right?
The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a bragger, an egoist, a bully, a self-promoter a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has No has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong. And his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. But the leftist is too far gone for that is feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable hints.
The collectivism of the leftist, he can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics, tactics, leftist protest, by laying down in front of the vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists used them not as means to an end, but because they prefer masochistic tactics, self hatred is a leftist trait.
Leftist may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles and moral principle play a role for the leftist in the over socialized type. But compassion and moral principle can not be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is to prominent a component of leftist behavior. So it was the driver for power. More, over much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be a benefit to the people who the left is claimed to be trying to help.
For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand it from It of action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive, productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least a verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.
Helping black people is not that our real goal, instead of 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 toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftist would have to invent problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss. We emphasize at the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist.
It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism. So that is the beginning of the industrial society and its future. And we've covered feelings of inferiority. The next section is going to be about over socialization and you know what? I think it's fascinating as we get further and further into the arguments of Theodore Ted Kaczynski, you're going to see how this particular personality type
Speaker 2 (28m 57s): Operates
Speaker 1 (28m 58s): In the world of technology.
Speaker 2 (29m 3s): And it's,
Speaker 1 (29m 3s): It's fascinating to just to dig down in and look, this guy was a, like I said, I'm gonna agree with everything he said, but the guys is not.
Speaker 2 (29m 13s): And this guy, right?
Speaker 1 (29m 16s): So it was operating on a level that most of us will never have the capacity to do so. And sometimes people that are really fucking smart are really fucking scary.
Speaker 2 (29m 30s): And that's what I would put this guy like that.
Speaker 1 (29m 35s): And if there are some uncomfortable truths, there's a lot of things that we're going to get into, hear that people they're not going to want to hear that they're not going to want to believe. And I am not here to tell you what this guy is saying is true. What I'm here to do is just expose you to this guy's writings. So Theodore Ted Kaczynski technological, slavery volume one. We are in the beginning of industrial society and a future. That's all we got for today. We'll be back at you. You guys
Speaker 3 (30m 2s): Tomorrow, Aloha.
https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/57320536
Speaker 0 (0s): Your skin is technological. <inaudible> free
Speaker 1 (11s): Industrial society and its future.
Speaker 0 (18s): Okay.
Speaker 1 (19s): For those of you that are not aware of mr. Kaczynski, he was the Unibomber and Harvard graduates graduate. Have a, I believe he was in the Harvard LSD studies is Well mathematician turned in by his brother and he had some fascinating ideas on the future of technology. And that's what we're going to get into his philosophy and get into some of his ideas and kind of go through and point out some areas in which he may have been correct in some ways in which he may have not been correct.
So it should be fun. I, I, I find his writings to be peculiar in their authenticity. It seems they're very genuine. What he's saying is something he truly believes, and he presents a lot of evidence to back it up. And it's a, it is a new angle that is rarely spoken up.
So without getting too much further into the weeds, let's just go ahead and start it here. The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life expectancy of those of us who live in advanced countries, but they have destabilized. A society have made life unfulfilling have subjected human beings to indignities have led to widespread psychological suffering in the third world to physical suffering as well and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world.
The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to a greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world. They will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering, even in advanced countries and a lot in their right. Let's just go over a little bit of it here. Would you agree that it has destabilized society?
I would think so. The ever widening gap in education finance literacy health clearly has been radicalized during the industrial revolution. Has it subjected human beings to indignities? Well, I think we all have added to that.
I'm talking to you on an iPhone and I have phones made at Fox con in China where people live in the building's like dorms and they have nets outside there Dwellings so that people don't jump off the roof and kill themselves or so that when people jump off the roof, they land at a net.
Speaker 2 (3m 43s): It is
Speaker 1 (3m 45s): To be fair, quite unfulfilling. And I think a lot of people are subjected to indignities, although it's not just in the third world. I mean, increasingly in advanced societies in the United States, people that are treated like cogs and wheels and they are treated as if they are numbers, instead of people, It does definitely inflicted severe damage on the natural.
And it's, it's odd. It's, you know, the, the promise of tech is that it will, it we'll make the world a better, however, there has been continued development. However, the way it has worked in the situation, I mean, It clear cutting of forest. You could argue that fracking has made us energy independent. However, it's also a polluted. A lot of water, The industrial technological system may survive, or it may break down.
If it survives, it may eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment, and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs and the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives the consequences, we'll be inevitable. There is no way of reforming or modifying the system.
So as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and a tie,
Speaker 2 (5m 32s): I mean,
Speaker 1 (5m 37s): I think we were at those crossroads right now. Are we going to see the industrial technological system survive? Or is it going to break down? If the system breaks down on the consequences will still be very painful, but the bigger the system grows, the more disastrous results or its breakdown will be. So if it is to break down, it had best breakdown sooner rather than later.
Now here is what Kaczynski was advocating for. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. Just revolution may or may not make use of violence. It may be sudden, or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can't predict any of that, but we do outline in a very general way, the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society.
This is not to be a political revolution. Its object will be to overthrow, not governments, but the economic and technological basis of the present society.
Speaker 2 (6m 52s): Friday
Speaker 1 (6m 55s): In this article, we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial technological systems, such developments. We mentioned only briefly or ignore all together. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant for practical reasons. We have to confine our discussion too, areas that have received insufficient public attention on in which we have something new to say, for example, since they were a well-developed environmental degradation, I'm sorry, since there are a well-developed environmental and a wilderness movement's we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.
Speaker 2 (7m 46s): Okay. Okay. So
Speaker 1 (7m 51s): No, just remember I'm reading here. I'm going to give you some commentary. Of course I don't endorse all of these thoughts. However, I think his thoughts are important enough to lay out there. The psychology of modern leftism. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world
Speaker 2 (8m 14s): Is leftism.
Speaker 1 (8m 16s): So the discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general. But what is leftism during the first half of the 20th century, leftism could practically have been identified with socialism today. The movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftist in this article, in this article, in this article, we have in mind, mainly socialists, collectivists, politically, correct types, gay and disability, activists, animal rights, activists, and the like, but not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist.
When we are trying to get at, in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type or rather a collection of related types. This is what we mean by leftism will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussions of leftist psychology, even. So our conception of leftism will remain a good deal, less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this.
All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way. The two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We, by no means claim to be telling the whole truth about leftist psychology. Also our discussion is meant to aptly. Also our discussion has been to apply to modern leftism. Only we leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftist of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism, we call feelings of inferiority and over socialization, feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism. As a whole, while over socialization is characteristic only have a certain segment of modern leftism, but this segment is highly influential
Speaker 2 (10m 47s): Feelings of inferiority
Speaker 1 (10m 52s): Has that has, is there a person out there that has never felt inferior? I think that's part of the human condition, right? I mean, It seems like how everybody has that feeling. It just comes down to how you deal with that feeling. It's important to know that there is always going to be someone better than you. There's always going to be someone smarter than you. There's always going to be someone working harder than you and that, but that also probably means that your better than some people, that you're working harder than other people that you are smarter than other people are a good rule of thumb is to think that you're probably not the best.
And you're definitely not the worst. You're probably somewhere in the middle and yeah, you're inferior in a lot of ways, just the vast number of people on this planet. And if you want to try to find a support group, because you are so inferior, like stop trying to find a support group and start getting better at things, find something that you love to do and get good at it. That's all you got to do. You'll you'll decrease those feelings of inferiority
Speaker 2 (12m 11s): By
Speaker 1 (12m 11s): Feelings of inferiority. We mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense, but a whole spectrum of related traits, low self-esteem feelings of powerlessness, depressive, tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self hatred, et cetera. We argue that modern left is tend to have some such feelings possibly more or less repressed, and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
I would agree. I think that's accurate when someone interprets as derogatory, almost anything that is said about him or about groups with whom he identifies, we conclude that he has an inferiority feelings of low self esteem. Have you ever met anybody like that? Like, no matter what you say, they take it as like a slur against them all. Are you saying this also, what you're saying is this over that Arctic that you guys ever see the interview with Jordan Peterson in the young lady, from the, the European lady over there, they were like in this debate and she just kept trying to frame what he was saying is, so what you're saying is, so what you're saying is, so what you're saying is, and he was like, no, that's what your saying.
I didn't say any of that. What you're trying to do is just take what I said, completely change it around and then throw it back to me. Like it was my word. He's like, that's a complete logical fallacy. It's a fan. It's a, it's a fascinating debate actually. And I think it underscores what this gentleman's talking about. Actually, I'd try to, I'll try to put a link in the show notes so you guys can check it out. It's, it's fascinating to see an example of exactly what this guy's talking about. And she would totally fit the category of a leftist.
This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups, whose rights they defend. Remember Rachel dazzle like the white girl she's in charge of the whole Africa. And she was in charge of like a, a minority group somewhere, but she wasn't even in the minority, this tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups, who's rites, they defend, they are. Hyper-sensitive about the words you use to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities, the terms Oriental handicapped, or
Speaker 2 (14m 45s): Okay
Speaker 1 (14m 47s): For an African and Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally, no derogatory connotation, broad and CIC were merely the feminine equivalents of guy, dude, or fellow the negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word pet and insist on as a replacement by animal companion leftish leftish anthropologists, go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive people's that could conceivably be interpreted as negative.
They want to replace the word primitive with non-literate. They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures are inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftist anthropologists. Those who are most sensitive about politically incorrect terminology or not the average black ghetto dweller 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 a privileged strata of society.
Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors who have secure employment and comfortable salaries. And the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle to upper class. That's fascinating to think about. I was recently watching a video and it was a mess. It was a panel of people from the world health organization and they were all white people. Well, every one of them, and they were talking about development in the United States.
And this gentleman from Harvard who was a white guy, probably middle, mid fifties. I mean, I don't know how much Harvard professors make, but lets say he's making, he's got to be making over a, a a hundred thousand. He's probably has some side gigs where he goes and speaks. He had mentioned multiple books that he's written, let's say he's doing 300 K a year.
And what this gentleman was talking about was how and how unfair it is for white people to have such privilege. Okay. And I think about what I'd have said, here's a white guy teaching at a prestigious school, making tons of money, selling books, talking about how unfair it is for white people to do what he does now.
He never wants in that discussion, advocated, stepping down. He never once said, you know what? I should move aside and allow someone else to have my position. What he said was
Speaker 2 (18m 2s): Has that uneducated white people, people that don't teach at Harvard people that don't write books, people that don't have his level of privilege
Speaker 1 (18m 17s): But are white. These people are white nationalists in these people are all racist and they're the problem with America.
Speaker 2 (18m 27s): And it was,
Speaker 1 (18m 27s): Yeah, it was like, I've had to watch it a few times. Just this guy is, it was like the ultimate irony. Like here's this guy
Speaker 2 (18m 36s): That is
Speaker 1 (18m 37s): Saying to the world, Hey, white people are the huge problem. They have all this fucking privilege. And this is the guy that had the most. And instead of taking a look in the mirror and saying will do, why don't you step aside? Then he was just aiming all his anger towards people in potentially like poor neighborhoods or people that have lower incomes or Maybe people that didn't have as much education as he
Speaker 2 (19m 6s): She had. And so, you know,
Speaker 1 (19m 9s): And it just seems to me to be a part of P part of the problem, you know what I mean? Like it just seems to me to be,
Speaker 2 (19m 18s): For me, it was just odd. It was really odd back to the book.
Speaker 1 (19m 26s): Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak, defeated repellent or otherwise inferior. The leftist themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, minorities are inferior.
We are only making a point about leftist psychology. That's an interesting point to see these other groups,
Speaker 2 (20m 12s): To see a lot of other groups
Speaker 1 (20m 16s): As in for you. I mean, that's like, Ew, if you feel you have to protect people than you feel like you're a superior to them. Like I should help out these people because I'm better than them. Or, you know, it's, it's,
Speaker 2 (20m 30s): That's a logical fallacy, right?
Speaker 1 (20m 34s): A feminist 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 is capable of this. Man. 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. Let me just pause here for a minute. This is not my life. I'm not saying I'm reading this book.
These are not my thoughts. My thoughts to the commentary that goes by. But just for anybody listening to me, the word, all the words you hear at are not mine. I'm reading this book. So don't judge me too hard on this. All right. Let me just need 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 that left is a gift for hating the West, et cetera, clearly do not correspond with that.
A real motives. They say they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric, and so forth. But where are the same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive culture is the leftist finds excuses for them or at best he grudgingly admits that they exist. Whereas he enthusiastically points out and often greatly exaggerates these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus, it is clear that these faults are not the leftists real motive for hating America and the West.
He hates America and the West because there are strong and successful work like self-confidence self-reliance initiative, enterprise optimism, et cetera, play a little roll in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti individualistic, pro collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's problems for them, satisfy everyone's needs for them. Take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs.
The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because deep inside, he feels like a loser
Speaker 2 (22m 54s): <inaudible>
Speaker 1 (22m 57s): Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to focus on sordid, newness, defeat, and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone throwing off a rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation. And all of that were left were to immerse oneself in the sensation of the moment. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason science objective reality, and to insist at everything is culturally relative.
It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all the concept of our objective reality can be defined, but it is obvious modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logistician, magicians, systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in the attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs.
For one thing that the attack is an outlet for hostility and to be the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hate science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true I IE, successful superior and other beliefs as false. I have failed inferior. The leftist feelings of inferiority runs so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification, have some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior.
This also underlies that rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Left is prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus, if a person is inferior, it is not his fault, but societies because he has not been brought up properly, that's the kind of the whole epigenetics debate, right?
The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a bragger, an egoist, a bully, a self-promoter a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has No has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong. And his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. But the leftist is too far gone for that is feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable hints.
The collectivism of the leftist, he can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics, tactics, leftist protest, by laying down in front of the vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists used them not as means to an end, but because they prefer masochistic tactics, self hatred is a leftist trait.
Leftist may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles and moral principle play a role for the leftist in the over socialized type. But compassion and moral principle can not be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is to prominent a component of leftist behavior. So it was the driver for power. More, over much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be a benefit to the people who the left is claimed to be trying to help.
For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand it from It of action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive, productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least a verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.
Helping black people is not that our real goal, instead of 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 toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftist would have to invent problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss. We emphasize at the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist.
It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism. So that is the beginning of the industrial society and its future. And we've covered feelings of inferiority. The next section is going to be about over socialization and you know what? I think it's fascinating as we get further and further into the arguments of Theodore Ted Kaczynski, you're going to see how this particular personality type
Speaker 2 (28m 57s): Operates
Speaker 1 (28m 58s): In the world of technology.
Speaker 2 (29m 3s): And it's,
Speaker 1 (29m 3s): It's fascinating to just to dig down in and look, this guy was a, like I said, I'm gonna agree with everything he said, but the guys is not.
Speaker 2 (29m 13s): And this guy, right?
Speaker 1 (29m 16s): So it was operating on a level that most of us will never have the capacity to do so. And sometimes people that are really fucking smart are really fucking scary.
Speaker 2 (29m 30s): And that's what I would put this guy like that.
Speaker 1 (29m 35s): And if there are some uncomfortable truths, there's a lot of things that we're going to get into, hear that people they're not going to want to hear that they're not going to want to believe. And I am not here to tell you what this guy is saying is true. What I'm here to do is just expose you to this guy's writings. So Theodore Ted Kaczynski technological, slavery volume one. We are in the beginning of industrial society and a future. That's all we got for today. We'll be back at you. You guys
Speaker 3 (30m 2s): Tomorrow, Aloha.
Support the show:
https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US
Check out our YouTube:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPzfOaFtA1hF8UhnuvOQnTgKcIYPI9Ni9&si=Jgg9ATGwzhzdmjkg
Grow your own:
https://modernmushroomcultivation.com/
This Band Will Blow Your Mind:
Codex Serafini
https://codexserafini.bandcamp.com/album/the-imprecation-of-anima
https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US
Check out our YouTube:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPzfOaFtA1hF8UhnuvOQnTgKcIYPI9Ni9&si=Jgg9ATGwzhzdmjkg
Grow your own:
https://modernmushroomcultivation.com/
This Band Will Blow Your Mind:
Codex Serafini
https://codexserafini.bandcamp.com/album/the-imprecation-of-anima
