Technological Slavery - Reading # 8
Strategy for Revolution......
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:
Technological Slavery pdf
https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/58868276
Speaker 0 (0s): I
Speaker 1 (3s): Haven't. We done enough with So self-important so self-important, everybody's got to save something. Now, save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those nails and the greatest arrogance of all save the planet. What are these fucking people? Kidding me. Save the planet. We don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another. We're gonna save the fucking planet Maybe sides. There is nothing wrong with the planet, nothing wrong with the planet.
The planet is fine. The way people are fucked.
Speaker 0 (43s): Welcome back everybody. Thank you for taking time to listen to this. Technological Slavery the writings of the Unabomber number eight, eight, eight Strategy the technocrats are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown. Many people understand something of what Technological process is doing to us yet take a passive attitude towards it because they think it inevitable, but we don't think its inevitable.
We think that can be stopped and we will give, hear some indications of how to go about stopping it. As we stated earlier, the two main tasks for the present, our to promote social stress and instability in industrial society as well to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system. When the system becomes sufficiently stressed and unstable, a revolution against technology may be possible.
The pattern would be similar to that, of the French and Russian revolutions, French society and Russian society for several decades prior to their respective revolutions showed increasing signs of stress and a weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that offer a new worldview that was quite different from the old one.
In the case of the Russians revolutionaries were actively working to undermine the old order. Then when the old system was put under a sufficient additional stress by a financial crisis in France, by military defeat in Russia, it was swept away by Revolution. What we propose is something along the same lines. It will be objected that the French and Russian revolutions were failures, but most revolutions have two goals.
One is to destroy an old form of society. The other is to set up the new form of society is envisioned by the revolutionaries. The French and Russian revolutionaries failed. Fortunately two create the new kind of society have, which they dreamed, but they were quite successful in destroying the old society. We have no illusions about the feasibility of creating a new ideal form of society.
Our goal is only to destroy the existing form of society. If we paused there for a minute often here, the case is made that it is easier to tear something down and it is difficult to rebuild something. The argument Ted Kaczynski is making his that yes, we understand that. However, in this case continued progress down the route of technical
Speaker 1 (4m 5s): Continued power
Speaker 0 (4m 8s): Amassing in the hands of the technophiles the technologically you think
Speaker 1 (4m 15s): I can only lead to one area, right?
Speaker 0 (4m 22s): I think it's important to note whether it's, whether it's fascism, whether it's nationalism or socialism, both of those are fascist regime regimes. And both of those nationalism and socialism are a path albeit a different path, but to the same destination, black cat, white cat, they both catch mice regardless of which one of those ideologies is being pursued.
And it seems as though those are the two only competing ideologies we will end up in the same spot. Nationalist will seek to use. Technological advanced for genocide, for eradicating people. They seem on pure the socialist we'll use the same technology to distribute the wealth of the middle class until there was no more wealth to give the only wealth who remained in the hands of a few.
Ultimately both of those ideologies lead to the same spot
Speaker 1 (5m 51s): Back to the book. And I know
Speaker 0 (6m 0s): The ology in order to gain enthusiastic support must have a positive ideal as well as a negative one. It must be for something as well as against something. The positive ideal
Speaker 1 (6m 15s): That we propose is nature.
Speaker 0 (6m 17s): That is wild nature. Those aspects of the functioning of the earth and is living things that are independent of human management and free of human interference and control
Speaker 1 (6m 32s): With wild nature. We include a human nature by which we mean
Speaker 0 (6m 37s): Those aspects of the functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation by organized society, but our products of chance free will God depending on your religious or philosophical opinions. Nature makes a perfect counter ideal to technology for several reasons, nature that which is outside the power of the system is the opposite of technology, which seeks to expand indefinitely.
The power of the system. Most people will agree that nature is beautiful. Certainly it has tremendous popular appeal. The radical environmentalist already hold an ideology that exalts nature and opposes technology is not necessary for the sake of nature to set up some chime, miracle utopia or any new kind of social order. Nature takes care of itself. It was a spontaneous creation that existed long before any human society and for countless centuries, many different kinds of human societies.
Co-existed with nature without doing it. An excessive amount of damage. Only with the industrial revolution, did the effect of human society on nature become a really devastating to relieve. The pressure on nature is not necessary to create any special kinds of social system. It is only necessary to get rid of industrial society.
Granted, this will not solve all problems. Industrial society has already done tremendous damage to nature, and it will take a very long time for those scars to heal. Besides even pre-industrial societies can do significant damage to nature. Nevertheless, getting rid of industrial society will accomplish a great deal. It will relieve the worst of the pressure on nature so that the scars can begin to heal. It will remove the capacity of organized society to keep increasing its control over nature, including human nature, whatever kind of society may exist after the demise of the industrial system.
It is certain that most people will live close to nature. 'cause in the absence of advanced technology, there is no other way that people can live to feed themselves. They must be peasants or herdsman, fishermen or hunters. And generally speaking, local autonomy should tend to increase because lack of advanced technology and rapid communications will limit the capacity of governments or other large organizations to control local communities as for the negative consequences of eliminating industrial society.
Well, you can't eat your cake and have it to them to gain one thing. Do you have to sacrifice another most people hate psychological conflict for this reason they avoid doing any serious thinking about difficult social issues. And they like to have such issues presented to them in simple black and white terms. This is all good. And that is all bad. The revolutionary ideology should therefore be developed on two levels.
On the more sophisticated level the ideology should address itself to people who are intelligent, thoughtful, and rational. The objects should be two, create a core of people who will be opposed to the industrial system on a rational thought out basis with full appreciation of the problems and ambiguities involved and of the price that has to be paid for. Getting rid of the system is particularly important to attract people of this type as they are capable people and will be instrumental in influencing others.
These people should be addressed on as rational level as possible fact should never intentionally be distorted. And in temper language should be avoided. This does not mean that no appeal can be made to the emotions, but in making such a appeal, KARE should be taken to avoid misrepresenting the truth or doing anything else that would destroy the intellectual respectability of the ideology.
On a second level, the ideology should be propagated in a simplified form that will enable the unthinking majority to see the conflict of technology versus nature in unambiguous terms. But even on the second level of the ideology is, should not be expressed and language that is so cheap in temperate or irrational that it alienates people of the thoughtful and rational type cheap in temperate propaganda sometimes achieves impressive short-term gains, but it will be more advantageous in the long run to keep the loyalty of a small number of intelligently committed people.
Then to arouse the passions of an unthinking fickle mob, who will change their attitude. As soon as someone comes along with a better propaganda gimmick, however, propaganda of the rabble rousing type may be necessary when the system is nearing the point of collapse. And there is a final struggle between rival ideology is to determine which will become dominant when the old worldview goes under. Prior to that final struggle, the revolutionaries should not expect to have the majority of people on their side.
History is made by active, determined minorities, not by the majority, which seldom has a clear and consistent idea of what it really wants until the time comes for the final push toward Revolution. The task of revolutionaries will be less to when the shallow support of the majority, then to build a small core of deeply committed people. As for the majority, it will be enough to make them aware of the existence of the new ideology and remind them of it frequently though, of course, it will be desirable to get majority support port to the extent that this can be done without weakening the core of seriously committed people, any kind of social conflict helps to destabilize the system.
But one should be careful about what kind of conflict. One encourages the line of conflict should be drawn between the massive, the people and the power holding elite of industrial society, politicians, scientists, upper level business executives, government officials. It should not be drawn between the, the revolutionaries and the mass or the people. I'm going to pause there for a minute. Anybody watching any kind of mainstream television listen to any sort of mainstream pundit.
If you listened to a mainstream channel mainstream radio, the propaganda we have now is desperately trying to divide us by color. By age black lives matter old versus young white nationalists, middle of these terrorists, all of these invisible boogeymen who do they really divide?
They divide and the people all the while the technical, the Technological elite, the technocrats, the government officials, the bloom, the builder burgers, the Atlantic council, the CFR trilateral commission, all of these individuals are working lock step with one another. They are, do they have a plan?
They have an agenda it's called 20, 30 working people. And people of all countries would do well to lock arms and rise up against their government. It should be all of us, everybody who works against the ruling elite, those people need to face the consequences of their actions and they spend millions of dollars on propaganda to divide the populace.
So the next time you have an idea about the person next to you, that is a difference, different color, different religion, older or younger, ask yourself if they are in fact really the problem. I think it was Socrates and he's who inspired people to say, ask one question. And that question is, is that true? If it is true, you should address it. If it's not true, you should look deeper, not be fooled by the propaganda.
The line should not be drawn between the revolutionaries and the mass of the people. For example, it would be a bad Strategy for the revolutionary is to condemn Americans for their habits of consumption. Instead, the average American should be portrayed as a victim of the advertising and marketing industry, which has suckered him into buying a lot of junk that he doesn't need. And that is a very poor compensation for as long as the freedom, either approach is consistent with the facts.
It is merely a matter of attitude, whether you blame the advertising industry for manipulating the public or blame the public for allowing itself to be manipulated as a matter of strategy, one should generally avoid blaming the public one should think twice before encouraging any other social conflict than that, between the power holding elite, which wields technology and the general public over which technology exert its power.
For one thing, other conflicts tend to distract attention from the important conflicts between power, elite, and ordinary people between technology and nature. For another thing, other conflicts may actually tend to encourage technology station because each side in such a conflict wants to use Technological power to gain advantages over its adversary. This is clearly seen in rivalries between nations.
It also appears in ethnic conflicts within nations. For example, in America, many black leaders are anxious to gain power for African Americans by placing black individuals in the Technological power elite. They want there to be many black government officials, scientists, corporation, executives, and so forth in this way. They are helping to absorb the African-American subculture into the Technological system. Generally speaking one should encourage only those social conflicts that can be fitted into the framework of the conflicts of power elite versus ordinary people, technology versus nature.
But the way to discourage ethnic conflict is not through militant advocacy of minority rights. Instead of the revolutionary, we should emphasize that although minority is, do suffer a more or less disadvantage, this disadvantage is a peripheral significance. Our real enemy is the industrial Technological system. And in the struggle against the system, ethnic distinctions are of no importance. The kind of Revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an armed uprising against any government.
It may or may not involve physical violence, but it will not be a political Revolution. Its focus we'll be on technology and economics, not politics, probably the revolutionaries should even avoid assuming political power, whether by legal or illegal means until the industrial system is stress to the danger point and has proven itself to be a failure in the eyes of most people.
Suppose for example, that's some green party should when control of the U S Congress and intellection in order to avoid betraying or watering down on their own ideology, they would have to take a vigorous measures to turn economic growth in the economic shrinkage to the average man, the results would appear disastrous. There would be massive unemployment shortages of commodities. Even if the grocer ill effects could be avoided through superhumanly skillful management, still people would have to begin giving up the luxuries to which they have become addicted.
Dissatisfaction would grow. The green party would be voted out of office and the revolutionaries would have suffered a severe setback. For this reason. The revolutionaries should not try to acquire political power until the system has itself into such a mess that any hardships will be seen as resulting from the failures of the industrial system itself and not from the policies of the revolutionaries, the Revolution against technology.
We probably have to be a revolution by outsiders, a revolution from below and not from above the revolution must be international. It's a revolution must be worldwide. It can not be carried out on a nation by nation basis. Whenever it is suggested that the United States, for example, we should cut back on Technological pro grass or economic growth. People get hysterical and just start screaming. And if we fall behind in technology, other countries, we'll get ahead of us.
Holy robots, the world we'll fly off the doorbell. If the rest of the world sells more cars than the U S nationalism is a great promoter of technology, more reasonably, it is argued that if the relatively democratic nations of the world fall behind in technology while nasty dictatorial nations, like China, Vietnam, and North Korea continue to progress. Eventually the dictators may come to dominate the world.
That is why the industrial system should be attacked in all nations simultaneously to the extent that this may be possible, Tru there is no assurance that the industrial system can be destroyed at approximately the same time all over the world. And it is even conceivable that the attempt to overthrow the system could lead instead to the domination of the system by dictators, that is a risk and has to be taken. And it is worth taking since the difference between a more chronic industrial system, right?
One controlled by dictators is small compared with the difference between an industrial system in a non-industrial one, it might even be argued that an industrial system controlled by dictators would be preferable because dictator controlled systems usually have proven inefficient since they are presumably more likely to break down. Look at Cuba. Revolutionaries might consider favoring measures that tend to build the world economy into a unified whole free trade agreements like NAFTA or a gap are probably harmful to the environment in the short-term, but in the long run, they may perhaps be advantageous 'cause they foster economic interdependence between nations.
It would be easier to destroy the industrial system on a worldwide basis. If the world economy is so unified, that is breakdown in any one major nation will lead to its breakdown in all industrialized nations. Some people take the line that modern man, too much power, too much control of her nature. They argue for a more passive attitude on the part of the human race. At best. These people are expressing themselves unclearly 'cause.
They fail to distinguish between power for large organizations and power for individuals and small groups. It is a mistake to argue for powerlessness and passivity 'cause people need power, modern Mann as a collective entity. That is the industrial system has immense power over nature. And we regard this as evil but modern individuals and small groups of individuals, how far less power than primitive man ever did.
Generally speaking, vast power of modern man over nature is exercised not by individuals or small groups, but by large organizations, to the extent that the average modern individual can wield the power of technology he is permitted to do so only within a narrow limits and only under the supervision and control of the system. You need a license for everything. And with the license comes rules with the license comes regulations, the individual, and will has only those Technological powers with which the system chooses to provide him.
His personal power over nature is slight primitive individuals and small groups actually held considerable power over nature, or maybe it would be better to say power within nature. When primitive man needed food, he knew how to find and prepare edible routes, how to track game and take it with homemade weapons. He knew how to protect himself from heat, cold rain, dangerous animals, but primitive man did relatively little damage to nature because the collective power of primitive society was negligible compared to the collective power of industrial society.
Instead of arguing for powerlessness. And pacivity one should argue that the power of Yeah, the industrial system should be broken and that this will greatly increase the power and freedom of individuals and small groups until the industrial system has been thoroughly rect. The destruction of that system must be the revolutionaries only goal. Other goals would distract attention and energy from the main goal. More importantly, if the revolutionaries permit themselves to have any other goal than the destruction of technology, they will be tempted to use technology as a tool for reaching that other goal.
If they give in to the temptation, they will fall right back into the Technological trap because modern Technological technology is a unified tightly organized system. So that in order to retain some technology, one finds itself obliged to retain most technology. Hence one ends up sacrificing only token amounts of technology. Suppose for example, that the revolutionaries took social justice as a goal, human nature, being what it is, social justice would not come out about spontaneously.
It would have to be enforced in order to enforce it. The revolutionaries would have to retain central organization and control for that. They would need rapid long distance transportation and communication. Therefore, all of the technology needed to support the transportation and communication systems to feed and clothe poor people. They would have to use agriculture, manufacturing, technology so forth so that the attempt to ensure social justice would force them to retain most parts of the Technological system.
Not that we have anything against social justice, but it must not be allowed to interfere with the effort to get rid of the Technological system. It would be hopeless for revolutionaries to try to attack the system without using some modern technology. If nothing else, they must use the communications media to spread their message, but they should use modern technology for only one purpose to attack the Technological system. Imagine an alcoholic sitting with a barrel of wine in front of them.
Suppose he starts saying to himself wine, isn't bad for you. If you use it in moderation, why they say small amounts of wine are even good for you? It wouldn't do me any harm. If I just take one little drink, well, you know, what's going to happen. Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine. Revolutionary should have as many children as they can. There is a strong, scientific evidence that social attitudes, our to a significant extent inherited no one suggests at a social media attitude is a different, is a direct outcome of a person's genetic constitution, but it appears that personality traits are partly inherited and that certain personality traits tend within the context of our society to make a person more likely to hold this or that social attitude.
Objections to these findings have been raised with the objections are feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated in any event. No one denies that children tend on the average to hold social attitudes similar to those of their parents. From our point of view, it doesn't matter much whether the attitudes are on genetically or through childhood training in either case they are passed on the trouble is that many of the people who are inclined to rebel against the industrial system are also concerned about the population problem.
Hence, they are apt to have a few or no children. And this way they may be handing the world over to the sort of people who support or at least except the industrial systems to ensure the strength of the next generation of revolutionaries. The present generation should reproduce itself abundantly in doing so. They will be worsening the population problem only slightly. And the most important problem is to get rid of the industrial system. 'cause once the industrial system has gone the world industrial
Speaker 1 (30m 33s): Because
Speaker 0 (30m 34s): Once the industrial system has gone, the world's population necessarily will decrease. Whereas if the industrial system survives, it will continue developing new techniques of food production that may enable the world's population to keep increasing almost indefinitely with regard to revolutionary. Strategy the only points on which we absolutely insist are that the single overriding goal must be the elimination of modern technology and that no other goal can be allowed to compete with this one for the rest.
Revolutionaries should take an empirical approach. If experience indicates that some of the recommendations made in the foreseeing foregoing paragraphs are not going to give good results. Then those recommendations should be discarded. Two kinds of technology in argument, likely to be raised against our proposed Revolution is that it is bound to fail because it is claimed throughout history.
Technology has always progressed. Never regressed, hence Technological regression is impossible, but at this claim is false. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will call small-scale technology and organization dependent technology. Small scale technology is technology that can be used by small scale communities without outside assistance organization. Dependent technology is technology that depends on large scale social organization.
We are aware of no significant cases of regression in small scale technology, but organizational dependent technology does regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down. Example when the Roman empire fell apart, the Roman small scale technology survived because any clever village craftsmen could build, for instance, a water wheel, any skilled Smith could make steel by Roman methods and so forth.
But the Romans organization dependent technology did in fact regress there, awkward ducks fell into disrepair and were never rebuilt. There are techniques of road construction where last the Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten. So that not until rather recent times do the sanitation of European cities equal that of ancient Rome. The reason why technology has seemed always to progress is that until perhaps a century or two before the industrial revolution, most technology was small scale technology.
But most of the technology developed since the industrial revolution is organization dependent technology, take the refrigerator. For example, without factory made parts or the facilities of a modern machine shop, it would be virtually impossible for a handful of local craftsmen to build a refrigerator. If by some miracle they did succeed in building one. It would be useless to them without a reliable source of electric power. So they would have to dam a stream, build a generator, generators require large amounts of copper wire.
Imagine trying to make that wire without modern machinery. And where would they get a gas suitable for refrigeration? It would be much easier to build an ice house or preserve food by drawing or picking as was done before the invention of the frigerator. So it was clear that at the industrial system where once thoroughly broken down refrigeration technology would quickly be lost. The same is true of other organizational dependent technology. And once this technology had been lost for a generation or so, it would take centuries to rebuild it just as it took centuries to build it for the first time around surviving technical books would be few and scattered and industrial society is built from scratch without outside, help can only be built in a series of stages.
You need tools to make tools, to make tools, to make tools, a long process of economic development and progress and social organization is required. And even in the absence of an ideology, opposed to technology, there is no reason to believe that anyone would be interested in rebuilding industrial society. The enthusiasm for a quote unquote progress is a phenomenon peculiar to that, a modern form of society.
And it seems not to have existed prior to the 17th century or thereabout in the late middle ages. There were four main civilizations that were equally advanced Europe, the Islamic world, India, and the far East three of those civilizations remained more or less stable and only Europe became dynamic. No one knows why Europe became dynamic at the same time. Historians have their theories, but these are only speculation at any rate.
It is clear that rapid development toward a Technological form of society occurs only under special conditions. So there was no reason to assume that a long lasting Technological regression can not be brought about would society eventually develop again toward an industrial Technological form, maybe that there is no use in worrying about it since we can't predict or control events 500 or a thousand years in the future, those problems will have to be dealt with by the people who will live at that time.
Three habit folks, the Strategy that would be taken out a few minutes to make me go over some parts in this, or is it We or we listen to the strategies you can use in your life. And let me know what you think again, there is a free PDF copy and the show notes. Thank you for your time. And we'll talk to you soon, a lot.
Technological Slavery pdf
https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/58868276
Speaker 0 (0s): I
Speaker 1 (3s): Haven't. We done enough with So self-important so self-important, everybody's got to save something. Now, save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those nails and the greatest arrogance of all save the planet. What are these fucking people? Kidding me. Save the planet. We don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another. We're gonna save the fucking planet Maybe sides. There is nothing wrong with the planet, nothing wrong with the planet.
The planet is fine. The way people are fucked.
Speaker 0 (43s): Welcome back everybody. Thank you for taking time to listen to this. Technological Slavery the writings of the Unabomber number eight, eight, eight Strategy the technocrats are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown. Many people understand something of what Technological process is doing to us yet take a passive attitude towards it because they think it inevitable, but we don't think its inevitable.
We think that can be stopped and we will give, hear some indications of how to go about stopping it. As we stated earlier, the two main tasks for the present, our to promote social stress and instability in industrial society as well to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system. When the system becomes sufficiently stressed and unstable, a revolution against technology may be possible.
The pattern would be similar to that, of the French and Russian revolutions, French society and Russian society for several decades prior to their respective revolutions showed increasing signs of stress and a weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that offer a new worldview that was quite different from the old one.
In the case of the Russians revolutionaries were actively working to undermine the old order. Then when the old system was put under a sufficient additional stress by a financial crisis in France, by military defeat in Russia, it was swept away by Revolution. What we propose is something along the same lines. It will be objected that the French and Russian revolutions were failures, but most revolutions have two goals.
One is to destroy an old form of society. The other is to set up the new form of society is envisioned by the revolutionaries. The French and Russian revolutionaries failed. Fortunately two create the new kind of society have, which they dreamed, but they were quite successful in destroying the old society. We have no illusions about the feasibility of creating a new ideal form of society.
Our goal is only to destroy the existing form of society. If we paused there for a minute often here, the case is made that it is easier to tear something down and it is difficult to rebuild something. The argument Ted Kaczynski is making his that yes, we understand that. However, in this case continued progress down the route of technical
Speaker 1 (4m 5s): Continued power
Speaker 0 (4m 8s): Amassing in the hands of the technophiles the technologically you think
Speaker 1 (4m 15s): I can only lead to one area, right?
Speaker 0 (4m 22s): I think it's important to note whether it's, whether it's fascism, whether it's nationalism or socialism, both of those are fascist regime regimes. And both of those nationalism and socialism are a path albeit a different path, but to the same destination, black cat, white cat, they both catch mice regardless of which one of those ideologies is being pursued.
And it seems as though those are the two only competing ideologies we will end up in the same spot. Nationalist will seek to use. Technological advanced for genocide, for eradicating people. They seem on pure the socialist we'll use the same technology to distribute the wealth of the middle class until there was no more wealth to give the only wealth who remained in the hands of a few.
Ultimately both of those ideologies lead to the same spot
Speaker 1 (5m 51s): Back to the book. And I know
Speaker 0 (6m 0s): The ology in order to gain enthusiastic support must have a positive ideal as well as a negative one. It must be for something as well as against something. The positive ideal
Speaker 1 (6m 15s): That we propose is nature.
Speaker 0 (6m 17s): That is wild nature. Those aspects of the functioning of the earth and is living things that are independent of human management and free of human interference and control
Speaker 1 (6m 32s): With wild nature. We include a human nature by which we mean
Speaker 0 (6m 37s): Those aspects of the functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation by organized society, but our products of chance free will God depending on your religious or philosophical opinions. Nature makes a perfect counter ideal to technology for several reasons, nature that which is outside the power of the system is the opposite of technology, which seeks to expand indefinitely.
The power of the system. Most people will agree that nature is beautiful. Certainly it has tremendous popular appeal. The radical environmentalist already hold an ideology that exalts nature and opposes technology is not necessary for the sake of nature to set up some chime, miracle utopia or any new kind of social order. Nature takes care of itself. It was a spontaneous creation that existed long before any human society and for countless centuries, many different kinds of human societies.
Co-existed with nature without doing it. An excessive amount of damage. Only with the industrial revolution, did the effect of human society on nature become a really devastating to relieve. The pressure on nature is not necessary to create any special kinds of social system. It is only necessary to get rid of industrial society.
Granted, this will not solve all problems. Industrial society has already done tremendous damage to nature, and it will take a very long time for those scars to heal. Besides even pre-industrial societies can do significant damage to nature. Nevertheless, getting rid of industrial society will accomplish a great deal. It will relieve the worst of the pressure on nature so that the scars can begin to heal. It will remove the capacity of organized society to keep increasing its control over nature, including human nature, whatever kind of society may exist after the demise of the industrial system.
It is certain that most people will live close to nature. 'cause in the absence of advanced technology, there is no other way that people can live to feed themselves. They must be peasants or herdsman, fishermen or hunters. And generally speaking, local autonomy should tend to increase because lack of advanced technology and rapid communications will limit the capacity of governments or other large organizations to control local communities as for the negative consequences of eliminating industrial society.
Well, you can't eat your cake and have it to them to gain one thing. Do you have to sacrifice another most people hate psychological conflict for this reason they avoid doing any serious thinking about difficult social issues. And they like to have such issues presented to them in simple black and white terms. This is all good. And that is all bad. The revolutionary ideology should therefore be developed on two levels.
On the more sophisticated level the ideology should address itself to people who are intelligent, thoughtful, and rational. The objects should be two, create a core of people who will be opposed to the industrial system on a rational thought out basis with full appreciation of the problems and ambiguities involved and of the price that has to be paid for. Getting rid of the system is particularly important to attract people of this type as they are capable people and will be instrumental in influencing others.
These people should be addressed on as rational level as possible fact should never intentionally be distorted. And in temper language should be avoided. This does not mean that no appeal can be made to the emotions, but in making such a appeal, KARE should be taken to avoid misrepresenting the truth or doing anything else that would destroy the intellectual respectability of the ideology.
On a second level, the ideology should be propagated in a simplified form that will enable the unthinking majority to see the conflict of technology versus nature in unambiguous terms. But even on the second level of the ideology is, should not be expressed and language that is so cheap in temperate or irrational that it alienates people of the thoughtful and rational type cheap in temperate propaganda sometimes achieves impressive short-term gains, but it will be more advantageous in the long run to keep the loyalty of a small number of intelligently committed people.
Then to arouse the passions of an unthinking fickle mob, who will change their attitude. As soon as someone comes along with a better propaganda gimmick, however, propaganda of the rabble rousing type may be necessary when the system is nearing the point of collapse. And there is a final struggle between rival ideology is to determine which will become dominant when the old worldview goes under. Prior to that final struggle, the revolutionaries should not expect to have the majority of people on their side.
History is made by active, determined minorities, not by the majority, which seldom has a clear and consistent idea of what it really wants until the time comes for the final push toward Revolution. The task of revolutionaries will be less to when the shallow support of the majority, then to build a small core of deeply committed people. As for the majority, it will be enough to make them aware of the existence of the new ideology and remind them of it frequently though, of course, it will be desirable to get majority support port to the extent that this can be done without weakening the core of seriously committed people, any kind of social conflict helps to destabilize the system.
But one should be careful about what kind of conflict. One encourages the line of conflict should be drawn between the massive, the people and the power holding elite of industrial society, politicians, scientists, upper level business executives, government officials. It should not be drawn between the, the revolutionaries and the mass or the people. I'm going to pause there for a minute. Anybody watching any kind of mainstream television listen to any sort of mainstream pundit.
If you listened to a mainstream channel mainstream radio, the propaganda we have now is desperately trying to divide us by color. By age black lives matter old versus young white nationalists, middle of these terrorists, all of these invisible boogeymen who do they really divide?
They divide and the people all the while the technical, the Technological elite, the technocrats, the government officials, the bloom, the builder burgers, the Atlantic council, the CFR trilateral commission, all of these individuals are working lock step with one another. They are, do they have a plan?
They have an agenda it's called 20, 30 working people. And people of all countries would do well to lock arms and rise up against their government. It should be all of us, everybody who works against the ruling elite, those people need to face the consequences of their actions and they spend millions of dollars on propaganda to divide the populace.
So the next time you have an idea about the person next to you, that is a difference, different color, different religion, older or younger, ask yourself if they are in fact really the problem. I think it was Socrates and he's who inspired people to say, ask one question. And that question is, is that true? If it is true, you should address it. If it's not true, you should look deeper, not be fooled by the propaganda.
The line should not be drawn between the revolutionaries and the mass of the people. For example, it would be a bad Strategy for the revolutionary is to condemn Americans for their habits of consumption. Instead, the average American should be portrayed as a victim of the advertising and marketing industry, which has suckered him into buying a lot of junk that he doesn't need. And that is a very poor compensation for as long as the freedom, either approach is consistent with the facts.
It is merely a matter of attitude, whether you blame the advertising industry for manipulating the public or blame the public for allowing itself to be manipulated as a matter of strategy, one should generally avoid blaming the public one should think twice before encouraging any other social conflict than that, between the power holding elite, which wields technology and the general public over which technology exert its power.
For one thing, other conflicts tend to distract attention from the important conflicts between power, elite, and ordinary people between technology and nature. For another thing, other conflicts may actually tend to encourage technology station because each side in such a conflict wants to use Technological power to gain advantages over its adversary. This is clearly seen in rivalries between nations.
It also appears in ethnic conflicts within nations. For example, in America, many black leaders are anxious to gain power for African Americans by placing black individuals in the Technological power elite. They want there to be many black government officials, scientists, corporation, executives, and so forth in this way. They are helping to absorb the African-American subculture into the Technological system. Generally speaking one should encourage only those social conflicts that can be fitted into the framework of the conflicts of power elite versus ordinary people, technology versus nature.
But the way to discourage ethnic conflict is not through militant advocacy of minority rights. Instead of the revolutionary, we should emphasize that although minority is, do suffer a more or less disadvantage, this disadvantage is a peripheral significance. Our real enemy is the industrial Technological system. And in the struggle against the system, ethnic distinctions are of no importance. The kind of Revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an armed uprising against any government.
It may or may not involve physical violence, but it will not be a political Revolution. Its focus we'll be on technology and economics, not politics, probably the revolutionaries should even avoid assuming political power, whether by legal or illegal means until the industrial system is stress to the danger point and has proven itself to be a failure in the eyes of most people.
Suppose for example, that's some green party should when control of the U S Congress and intellection in order to avoid betraying or watering down on their own ideology, they would have to take a vigorous measures to turn economic growth in the economic shrinkage to the average man, the results would appear disastrous. There would be massive unemployment shortages of commodities. Even if the grocer ill effects could be avoided through superhumanly skillful management, still people would have to begin giving up the luxuries to which they have become addicted.
Dissatisfaction would grow. The green party would be voted out of office and the revolutionaries would have suffered a severe setback. For this reason. The revolutionaries should not try to acquire political power until the system has itself into such a mess that any hardships will be seen as resulting from the failures of the industrial system itself and not from the policies of the revolutionaries, the Revolution against technology.
We probably have to be a revolution by outsiders, a revolution from below and not from above the revolution must be international. It's a revolution must be worldwide. It can not be carried out on a nation by nation basis. Whenever it is suggested that the United States, for example, we should cut back on Technological pro grass or economic growth. People get hysterical and just start screaming. And if we fall behind in technology, other countries, we'll get ahead of us.
Holy robots, the world we'll fly off the doorbell. If the rest of the world sells more cars than the U S nationalism is a great promoter of technology, more reasonably, it is argued that if the relatively democratic nations of the world fall behind in technology while nasty dictatorial nations, like China, Vietnam, and North Korea continue to progress. Eventually the dictators may come to dominate the world.
That is why the industrial system should be attacked in all nations simultaneously to the extent that this may be possible, Tru there is no assurance that the industrial system can be destroyed at approximately the same time all over the world. And it is even conceivable that the attempt to overthrow the system could lead instead to the domination of the system by dictators, that is a risk and has to be taken. And it is worth taking since the difference between a more chronic industrial system, right?
One controlled by dictators is small compared with the difference between an industrial system in a non-industrial one, it might even be argued that an industrial system controlled by dictators would be preferable because dictator controlled systems usually have proven inefficient since they are presumably more likely to break down. Look at Cuba. Revolutionaries might consider favoring measures that tend to build the world economy into a unified whole free trade agreements like NAFTA or a gap are probably harmful to the environment in the short-term, but in the long run, they may perhaps be advantageous 'cause they foster economic interdependence between nations.
It would be easier to destroy the industrial system on a worldwide basis. If the world economy is so unified, that is breakdown in any one major nation will lead to its breakdown in all industrialized nations. Some people take the line that modern man, too much power, too much control of her nature. They argue for a more passive attitude on the part of the human race. At best. These people are expressing themselves unclearly 'cause.
They fail to distinguish between power for large organizations and power for individuals and small groups. It is a mistake to argue for powerlessness and passivity 'cause people need power, modern Mann as a collective entity. That is the industrial system has immense power over nature. And we regard this as evil but modern individuals and small groups of individuals, how far less power than primitive man ever did.
Generally speaking, vast power of modern man over nature is exercised not by individuals or small groups, but by large organizations, to the extent that the average modern individual can wield the power of technology he is permitted to do so only within a narrow limits and only under the supervision and control of the system. You need a license for everything. And with the license comes rules with the license comes regulations, the individual, and will has only those Technological powers with which the system chooses to provide him.
His personal power over nature is slight primitive individuals and small groups actually held considerable power over nature, or maybe it would be better to say power within nature. When primitive man needed food, he knew how to find and prepare edible routes, how to track game and take it with homemade weapons. He knew how to protect himself from heat, cold rain, dangerous animals, but primitive man did relatively little damage to nature because the collective power of primitive society was negligible compared to the collective power of industrial society.
Instead of arguing for powerlessness. And pacivity one should argue that the power of Yeah, the industrial system should be broken and that this will greatly increase the power and freedom of individuals and small groups until the industrial system has been thoroughly rect. The destruction of that system must be the revolutionaries only goal. Other goals would distract attention and energy from the main goal. More importantly, if the revolutionaries permit themselves to have any other goal than the destruction of technology, they will be tempted to use technology as a tool for reaching that other goal.
If they give in to the temptation, they will fall right back into the Technological trap because modern Technological technology is a unified tightly organized system. So that in order to retain some technology, one finds itself obliged to retain most technology. Hence one ends up sacrificing only token amounts of technology. Suppose for example, that the revolutionaries took social justice as a goal, human nature, being what it is, social justice would not come out about spontaneously.
It would have to be enforced in order to enforce it. The revolutionaries would have to retain central organization and control for that. They would need rapid long distance transportation and communication. Therefore, all of the technology needed to support the transportation and communication systems to feed and clothe poor people. They would have to use agriculture, manufacturing, technology so forth so that the attempt to ensure social justice would force them to retain most parts of the Technological system.
Not that we have anything against social justice, but it must not be allowed to interfere with the effort to get rid of the Technological system. It would be hopeless for revolutionaries to try to attack the system without using some modern technology. If nothing else, they must use the communications media to spread their message, but they should use modern technology for only one purpose to attack the Technological system. Imagine an alcoholic sitting with a barrel of wine in front of them.
Suppose he starts saying to himself wine, isn't bad for you. If you use it in moderation, why they say small amounts of wine are even good for you? It wouldn't do me any harm. If I just take one little drink, well, you know, what's going to happen. Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine. Revolutionary should have as many children as they can. There is a strong, scientific evidence that social attitudes, our to a significant extent inherited no one suggests at a social media attitude is a different, is a direct outcome of a person's genetic constitution, but it appears that personality traits are partly inherited and that certain personality traits tend within the context of our society to make a person more likely to hold this or that social attitude.
Objections to these findings have been raised with the objections are feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated in any event. No one denies that children tend on the average to hold social attitudes similar to those of their parents. From our point of view, it doesn't matter much whether the attitudes are on genetically or through childhood training in either case they are passed on the trouble is that many of the people who are inclined to rebel against the industrial system are also concerned about the population problem.
Hence, they are apt to have a few or no children. And this way they may be handing the world over to the sort of people who support or at least except the industrial systems to ensure the strength of the next generation of revolutionaries. The present generation should reproduce itself abundantly in doing so. They will be worsening the population problem only slightly. And the most important problem is to get rid of the industrial system. 'cause once the industrial system has gone the world industrial
Speaker 1 (30m 33s): Because
Speaker 0 (30m 34s): Once the industrial system has gone, the world's population necessarily will decrease. Whereas if the industrial system survives, it will continue developing new techniques of food production that may enable the world's population to keep increasing almost indefinitely with regard to revolutionary. Strategy the only points on which we absolutely insist are that the single overriding goal must be the elimination of modern technology and that no other goal can be allowed to compete with this one for the rest.
Revolutionaries should take an empirical approach. If experience indicates that some of the recommendations made in the foreseeing foregoing paragraphs are not going to give good results. Then those recommendations should be discarded. Two kinds of technology in argument, likely to be raised against our proposed Revolution is that it is bound to fail because it is claimed throughout history.
Technology has always progressed. Never regressed, hence Technological regression is impossible, but at this claim is false. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will call small-scale technology and organization dependent technology. Small scale technology is technology that can be used by small scale communities without outside assistance organization. Dependent technology is technology that depends on large scale social organization.
We are aware of no significant cases of regression in small scale technology, but organizational dependent technology does regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down. Example when the Roman empire fell apart, the Roman small scale technology survived because any clever village craftsmen could build, for instance, a water wheel, any skilled Smith could make steel by Roman methods and so forth.
But the Romans organization dependent technology did in fact regress there, awkward ducks fell into disrepair and were never rebuilt. There are techniques of road construction where last the Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten. So that not until rather recent times do the sanitation of European cities equal that of ancient Rome. The reason why technology has seemed always to progress is that until perhaps a century or two before the industrial revolution, most technology was small scale technology.
But most of the technology developed since the industrial revolution is organization dependent technology, take the refrigerator. For example, without factory made parts or the facilities of a modern machine shop, it would be virtually impossible for a handful of local craftsmen to build a refrigerator. If by some miracle they did succeed in building one. It would be useless to them without a reliable source of electric power. So they would have to dam a stream, build a generator, generators require large amounts of copper wire.
Imagine trying to make that wire without modern machinery. And where would they get a gas suitable for refrigeration? It would be much easier to build an ice house or preserve food by drawing or picking as was done before the invention of the frigerator. So it was clear that at the industrial system where once thoroughly broken down refrigeration technology would quickly be lost. The same is true of other organizational dependent technology. And once this technology had been lost for a generation or so, it would take centuries to rebuild it just as it took centuries to build it for the first time around surviving technical books would be few and scattered and industrial society is built from scratch without outside, help can only be built in a series of stages.
You need tools to make tools, to make tools, to make tools, a long process of economic development and progress and social organization is required. And even in the absence of an ideology, opposed to technology, there is no reason to believe that anyone would be interested in rebuilding industrial society. The enthusiasm for a quote unquote progress is a phenomenon peculiar to that, a modern form of society.
And it seems not to have existed prior to the 17th century or thereabout in the late middle ages. There were four main civilizations that were equally advanced Europe, the Islamic world, India, and the far East three of those civilizations remained more or less stable and only Europe became dynamic. No one knows why Europe became dynamic at the same time. Historians have their theories, but these are only speculation at any rate.
It is clear that rapid development toward a Technological form of society occurs only under special conditions. So there was no reason to assume that a long lasting Technological regression can not be brought about would society eventually develop again toward an industrial Technological form, maybe that there is no use in worrying about it since we can't predict or control events 500 or a thousand years in the future, those problems will have to be dealt with by the people who will live at that time.
Three habit folks, the Strategy that would be taken out a few minutes to make me go over some parts in this, or is it We or we listen to the strategies you can use in your life. And let me know what you think again, there is a free PDF copy and the show notes. Thank you for your time. And we'll talk to you soon, a lot.
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
