Social engineering the devolution of the USA
The technocratic government of the world.
Support the show:
https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US
🚨🚨Curious about the future of psychedelics? Imagine if Alan Watts started a secret society with Ram Dass and Hunter S. Thompson… now open the door.
https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US
🚨🚨Curious about the future of psychedelics? Imagine if Alan Watts started a secret society with Ram Dass and Hunter S. Thompson… now open the door.
Marquee Event:
Technocracy & it’s unintended consequences.....excerpts & insights from the books
connectography - Khanna
Technological slavery - Ted Kaczinski
Transcript:
Speaker 0 (0s): Good morning. All my friends, Hey guys, doing that there. I missed you yesterday. I was thinking about you. I was like, I wonder what everybody's doing. I wonder if they miss me cause you know what? Dammit, I miss you guys. I miss you guys, man. But I have a little time to think yesterday. And I've been going down the deep dark rabbit hole, the deep, the rabbit hole of technology rising in the pathway of supply chains and mapping the future of global civilization.
And I've been getting into that book, Parag, Conner, and I've been comparing and contrasting it with Patrick Wood. And I came up with a little bit of analysis and I just want to run it by you guys here and to let you know what I think, I think that what you're seeing right now is the inevitable clash of civilizations between the United States and China. It's a clash of cultures. It's a clash of ideas. It's a clash of governing.
It's a clash of leadership styles. I think there's something called the acidities trap. And that is when a young power is coming up and will soon take the place of the older power, much like the U S did to Britain. And if you go back in history, you can look that up and check it out. So I know most people can't see this, but you can listen to it. So I will work hard and try to describe exactly the maps that I saw so that I can paint you a mental picture of them.
Hopefully there'll be clear if you close your eyes to think of a map of China for all my friends in Europe, and this will be way easier for you than my friends in America. Alright. That means to all my friends in America, but to step your game up, but to start checking out a globe, I'm just playing. I can talk a little shit to you guys, cause I love you. Okay. So close your eyes. Think of China and then think about the coast of China and then draw with your finger.
A small circle around all the little cities. Well, they're not so little, but all the cities along the coastline of China, they're like their own entities. The cities in China, that economic model is a lot like the States in the United States, except they're based on the city model. That would mean that the governor of that city is a lot like the president has a lot more authority and is governed by looser laws.
As long as you achieve the goal that is set forth by the governing body of the nation, you're free to utilize whatever methods you need to use in order to accomplish that goal. Now close your eyes and think of the United States. You can think of all the different States and all the lines that are crossed and
Speaker 1 (3m 32s): States are a lot larger than cities, especially
Speaker 0 (3m 40s): In the United States because the United States is so vast and so big. There are some States that are not economic powerhouses. There are some States that in fact, don't provide a whole lot of economic resources to the whole. And on the flip side, there are some States that are like the seventh largest economy in the world. But what's important to think about is how each country has divided up the authority in the U S we have the president congresses, but each state is its own entity in China.
They have the mega city model. And I'm going to argue that the mega city model is in fact, the preferred method for technocratic government and that you're seeing something like that happen in the United States. I wrote a little bit on this subject. I'd like to read that to you now. I think what you're going to see in the U S is like a devolution from nation to Federation, to mega city economic model.
For some time, the politicians wall street and media has spoken about a potential financial crisis. We know that the trade war between the U S and China is quickly escalating. I often think that if history has a way of not necessarily repeating, but rhyming that the linguistic pathway of a trade war, currency, war, and world war may be on the horizon for the last few decades. The term globalization was thought to be the answer to our planet's most pressing issues.
The social engineer's sought to structure our planet like a giant corporation. One in which the top 1% could whipsaw the labor of third world nations against one another forever. Cutting the cost while increasing productivity, a diverse group of economic minded executives from all countries found themselves cloaked in the Gildan golden robes of greed, a bonded brotherhood who could not conceive that their demise was built into the very foundation on which they stood.
Allow me to further explain some of the maps that I had previously talked about and give my opinion on the current economic crisis. In the first image, that's the one we spoke about China and the city model does efficient and that a central planning authority can build roads, rails, ports, and harbors, regardless of what the population says or does the central government can come and kick everybody out and say, we're building something here.
I don't care how long your family has been here. I don't care what your ties are. This is the most efficient spot for this port and we're building it. So beat it. Also, I think it's important to note right here that the Chinese model, while it still has trappings of communist behavior, it is in fact, a full blown technocracy. This allows for rapid growth ever increasing production rates consumption, and the rule by science, better known as technocracy Here in America.
As we began to hear what Ross Perot described as a giant sucking sound, we soon were able to see the emptiness in the soul of the United States of America. Big business saw a rapid reduction in costs and increase in profits. Politicians watched and Slack jot ecstasy at the thought of wielding such authority over their citizens. Like most lustful relationships. It didn't take long to realize this relationship was unsustainable.
China was like a sultry seductive succubus sneaking off in the middle of the night to satiate her carnal desires and who could blame her, the bellicose big bellied impotence of wall street, fat cats who claim the ability to have infinite stamina. We're lucky to pull the gun from the holster room, but I was shooting their foot
Speaker 1 (7m 60s): Right here.
Speaker 0 (8m 3s): That's where we begin to see the breakup. It wasn't one of <inaudible> books that I read his story about Hillary Clinton. He was at a cocktail party where he had a few moments to speak with the former first lady as the conversation was wrapping up. He asked the question to her, why is it that so many men in business and politics have only the most vile things to say about you? Hillary Clinton's answer was, I think it's because I remind all of them of their first wife.
I thought that was hilarious, but that is exactly how big business and politicians are beginning to see our current relationship with China. It's gonna be a messy divorce. It's not going to be pretty. And in fact, I would argue that you can already see the children fighting, being used as leverage, just like in all horrible divorces. The children are used to cause harm to the mother and the father through use as some sort of a divisive wedge to break up the, The wheel that has an instrument of hate against the other person Already.
You can see the children fighting, being used as leverage, be it in Hong Kong, against their mother, like the Hong Kong protests being used to destabilize the mainland of China and equally the BLM movement in the United States being used against the father. The same way the student protest in Hong Kong are being used to destabilize China. It is in fact, the very same way that the BLM movement is being used as a tool of division to destabilize America.
Speaker 1 (10m 3s): Yeah,
Speaker 0 (10m 7s): We are going to be divorced and our assets will be split. This brings me to the description of the second map. This map is what the USA is going to become, unless there is some sort of intervention for those of you just listening. This is a map where the United States is not broken up into States, but in fact, regions, territories think of California being one. And then the Northwest being another one, the Midwest being another, the Southern States, compromising of Texas, new Orleans and Florida being port areas, the East coast from New York to Boston being a financial hub.
Think of the United States, not the map that you normally see, but as divided up into five to six territories, a Federation, if you will, Under the guise of sustainable development, climate change and diversity, our country has been divided a series of Trojan horses to sneak in the shock troops of despair. Instead of a nation, we will devolve into a Federation.
Then the transformation to a mega city model will be easily attainable to understand the city model, think of Singapore. And by that, I mean, think about the geography of where it lies. Think about the geography. That's important because that's how supply chains work to further add this conversation.
I want you to think about in the United States, where are the riots taking place throughout the world? Where the rise taking place in your country? Are they in strategic areas of your country? Are they in port cities? Are they in parts of your country that are the bread basket? And what I mean by that is where all the food is being farmed.
What about COVID? Whereas COVID hitting your country. Could you make the case that COVID is hitting the world the hardest in spots that are strategic locations for supply chains? And if you can make that argument, could you take it one step further and think that these areas are being secured for supply chains? How does COVID match up with the Chinese belt and road initiative in the U S there's a lot of States that are being really locked down.
I think of California, I think of New York. And these are in fact Meijer's strategic areas and what's happening to those places. Well, right now there's financial calamity. But if you take a few minutes to think about the longterm economic ramifications of these areas being hit, what does that mean? Well, it means that eventually, if we do have a financial crisis, people are moving out of those places, at least for now.
I think that means that you'll be able to pick up property. They're really cheap ports, especially if you were part of the financial institution. Isn't it interesting that there's been so much financial corruption since COVID now I know I have a lot of listeners in different parts of the world, and I know that you may not be 100% of breast on what actually is happening.
And I don't, I don't think anybody truly is. However, let me fill in some people that are not in the U S some of the things that thus some of the things that us in the U S have seen as far as economic malfeasance, we have seen is the biggest transformation of wealth from working people to the richest. 1%, We've seen a transfer of wealth on such a grand scale that it's almost unthinkable the disregard for the dollar.
There was recently a government policy that in very vague terms allowed anyone in the USA who could prove they had a business to apply for a loan of up to $2 million that would be given to them without any scrutiny. And there was so much fraud that happened.
It's also interesting to point out that on that particular stimulus deal, that the banks in the United States made $12 billion in processing fees, $12 billion. I would argue that these particular stimulus packages for the people are in fact, just bailouts for the corporations. They are in fact ways to try and keep American business afloat so that they cannot be hollowed out by foreign entities.
Additionally, you could also say that this is the exact transformation
Speaker 1 (16m 23s): <inaudible>
Speaker 0 (16m 26s): That we talked about earlier. This is money being pumped from the very last working Americans from the very last system into the new Chinese style American system. In order for us to have a Federation in the United States, there must be devolution. We must break up the initial 50 States and where's the money going to come from? Well, the money is going to come from the transfer of wealth that we just saw. There's going to be what is known as consolidation.
And that's why the mom and pops bots are going to be run into the ground. They're not allowed to go to work. They're not allowed to open up, whereas any company that has over 500 people while the government doesn't tell them what to do, but anything less than 500, the government will tell you, Hey, you guys, they're going to make it so that you can't work. They're going to make those places go out of business. So there's zero competition for the biggest people. And when I say biggest people, I mean companies like Amazon, multinational corporations,
Speaker 1 (17m 35s): <inaudible>,
Speaker 0 (17m 37s): You're going to see the consolidation of small businesses into the big ones. You're going to see the consolidation of power into the city, the mega city that was made popular by China. And I think that's happening not only in the U S but throughout the nation, a good way to help you understand this. It's so hard to see when you're in the situation. You know what I mean by that? Like, if you're in a relationship with somebody it's difficult, especially if you're really blinded by lust, or you're real, you're a little bit younger, or you, your judgment is clouded by emotion, but all of us have had, have had a friend where you could see the relationship and just know this is never going to work, but the person in that relationship can't see it.
The reason I bring that up is if you want to know what's happening in your country, then tune into the happenings of another country. Cause what we're seeing around the world is the same thing. And it doesn't matter if it's black or white or yellow or red, or does it matter how round your eyes are, what color your hair is what's happening in our country is happening in your country.
And I think it's a lot like 1930, I think it's eerily similar. And I think it would have eerily similar results. You know, when you talk about sustainable development, when you talk about agenda 21, when you talk about a more diverse culture, when you talk about equality and diversity, what you're really talking about is trying to use the scientific method to make the world a better place.
And that is the very definition of technocracy. You could make the case that Germany in world war II was a technology oracy in fact, you know what let's let's, let's, let's move down that path for a minute, because I would also like to reference, are you from, is everyone familiar with Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber? I get it. I don't know. I don't agree with everything that that guy did.
However, if you read his book, technological slavery, he forecasted a lot of what's about to happen. And I want to kind of go down that path right now and explain a little bit about why that guy did what he did and how it pertains to our situation today. And in order to introduce that topic to this conversation, I want to start off with a story. And that story is about a Aborigine tribe in the sixties called the, your Yanet and the year Yon.
It were a Aborigine tribe somewhere down between New Zealand and Australia on an Island, I believe. And they, they somehow were able to stay uncontacted and have their tribal unit and their tribal way of life intact until the 1960s or seventies.
And that's when a that's when a social experiment was tried on them. That gives us insight into all our behaviors and what that social experiment was, was that in the sixties, a tra a group of missionaries went to this Island and they handed something out. But before I tell you what they handed out, let me tell you the main technology of the, your unit on that tribe.
The number one technology they had was a stone ax, and it was very difficult to make this stone ax. In fact, only the elder men really knew how to make the stone ax, but the stone ax was, it was symbolic of leadership. It was symbolic of their culture. It was the, it was the leading technology of their time. And thus, whoever could wield that ax, whoever could build that ax held a special position in positions of authority.
And it was always the elder men. Now I hear you it's listen. You can make the case that chauvinistic or whatever, but that's not the point of the story. The point of the story is to talk about the actual war technology. And that was the stone ax and that in a weird way, because that was their main technology. That's kind of what their society was built upon. So now that I filled you in there, this tribe of vision, I'm sorry, the group of missionaries came down and they thought, wouldn't it be nice to bring this tribe who only has stone axes, a big shipment, a large crate of steel well-made axes.
And so they did, they brought down a big chest and they went to the Island and they, they landed there. And when they landed, of course, everyone was skeptical of who are these new people bringing gifts, right? The old adage of beware of people bringing gifts. So the elders of the tribe, the men who actually had their stone axes, they kind of stayed away. They didn't want any part to do with these odd looking people that seem to be invading their Island for a short time. But because this group of missionaries were handing out axes, you see the elders in the tribe, they, they had an ax, their status was safe and they were safe in their culture.
Cause that ax had been a symbol of their culture for so long, but you know, who didn't have the axes, the women and the children. If they wanted to use an ax, they had to go and, and, you know, ask the elder, Hey, can I use the ax? I needed to do this chore. I needed that. However, when the missionaries brought these axes down, the children and the women, now they had their axes. And in fact, they were better axes that were better made. They were stronger. And so the missionaries documented over a course of, I think it was three months.
What happened because of any guesses, what happened? He was gonna take a guess before I go any further, come on, you guys know what happened. Well, according to the documents of the missionaries, they were in a very short time. It fundamentally changed the way that society was working. One of the very first consequences I'll call them unintended consequences were that the amount of work almost stopped, you see, they no longer needed the stone ax.
So all the chores, all the, the craftsmanship, all that was done relatively quickly and the people in the tribe began spending more time sleeping. And it was at that point in time in some of the missionary logs where they began to see, Oh, what do we do here? That was like their first inclination of maybe this isn't a good idea because the D stone act, because the acts were one of the most valuable things in the tribe, the new axes became more valuable than the elders.
And with it, with it changed their culture. It changed their culture because the women or the children no longer had to go to the elder men and ask him, Hey, may I use that ax? It also broke up the, these tribal ceremonies that were surrounded, that were about the acts. It broke up the guilds of men who were able to make the acts. It destroyed a complex social network.
You know, the, their social structure had been made up of daily life surrounding their technology over a thousand years. And in a few months, boom, it was all gone. It was all gone. Now, the reason that story is important is because I think that it lays out the very foundation of introducing new technology to groups of people. Be it tribes, be it cities, be it continents, we're all humans.
And even though we may feel as if we're different today than a tribe of indigenous Aborigines 60 years ago, but really not that different or really not that different. In fact, people argue that if today you went into a room and took out all the screens, be it TVs or iPads or phones, that room would look exactly like it did in the fifties. So think about that. However, upon introducing new technology to a group of people or a society, one must understand three points, three components,
Speaker 1 (27m 43s): Okay.
Speaker 0 (27m 45s): Form function. And meaning In the case of the ax, the form was the technology. It was a better form of technology. The steel ax versus the stone ax, the function of the technology
Speaker 1 (28m 10s): <inaudible>
Speaker 0 (28m 16s): Was to hold together the hierarchy, the status, the group cohesiveness amongst helping prepare for the daily activities you see in both the tribe and the, And the missionaries had somewhat of an understanding of both of those, the form and the function. However, what neither of them understood about the technology was the meaning.
The meaning neither understood the meaning Because the meaning was determined over time through absorption of the technology, into the receiving culture.
Speaker 1 (29m 0s): <inaudible>
Speaker 0 (29m 6s): And that's the same problem we have today with Are forms of technology. And specifically, when I say technology, I mean this new idea of technocratic government, we understand the form. We understand the function, but we do not have any idea of what the meaning is. And nor do these people in charge who think that they can better provide for the planet using a rule by science.
Let me give you a quick, quick story, or I'm going to lead into this. Cause what I want this to lead into is I want this to lead into you. And I want to argue that the motivations of scientists are not what you think. In fact, the motivations of modern day scientists are much like the motivations of all people who find themselves in positions of authority.
They are dangerous. They are, they are shrouded with egoistic narrow sight. They are problematic to say the least. They're very shortsighted immediately. What comes to mind for me is Elon Musk. If one loves this guy, Hey Ilan, you're doing great, man.
Good job, Elan. Nice job on the car. Have you have you just taken a few minutes to think about the irony in which that guy runs his life? If you listen to interviews with him, he's one of the number one components against AI. He's the first one to tell you that artificial intelligence is a huge problem and it may be the detriment of our entire planet. Don't believe me, look them up.
Look them up on YouTube. Look them up on any interview. He is the number one guy to bring out this component. You could listen to him on Rogan. He gets all quiet and he's scared. And he's like, Oh no, this, this is probably going to be what undoes us. Right? He doesn't mince words. That's what he thinks. However, he's probably the leading force rushing us down this road of technocratic government. He's the number one person training AI in our country. What is neural link?
Neural link is putting a chip in your brain. Is that not going to be the very foundation on which our AI is going to learn? How to understand what it's like to be human, if that's even possible, if it's even possible, how can Elon, Musk's sit up here and run his mouth about how dangerous AI is, and then spend his entire life trying to create it. How can you do that?
I'm asking you, you see now you're beginning to understand the motivations of scientists. It's not to better humanity. Think of the Elon Musk situation. I just told you, he's not trying to create a better humanity.
Speaker 2 (32m 42s): He may tell you that, but is that what he's doing? No. His research is going to lead to the very thing that he thinks is going to destroy humanity. Yet he's pushing forward at a pace that is not only incredibly problematic, but it's unsustainable, right? We're running from the very thing that could free us.
As one example, I'll have to give you a few more examples. Let us think of Wernher Von Braun. Everybody remembers him, right? He was the, he was the lead scientist for the V2. Rocket was that one. He made the V2 rocket. He was Hitler's chief rocket scientist and directed development of the V two rocket that killed some 20,000 civilians in allied countries during world war II, C Von Braun claimed after the war that his motives had been quote unquote patriotic, but the while he was working for Hitler, Von Braun must have known that the Jews were being exterminated.
Since this was kind of an open secret in Germany from the end of 42 at the very latest. Now, what kind of patriotism would lead a man to build a weapons for a regime that exterminates entire ethnic groups from sheer spite? It is sufficiently clear. I would argue that patriotism was merely an excuse for Von Braun and that all he really wanted was to build rockets for their own sake.
Right. You know, as world war two, neared its end in 45 Braun, and many of his associates close to surrender to the U S I'm sorry, as world war II, neared its end in 45 Braun. And many of his associates chose to surrender to the U S where they believed they would likely receive support for their rocket research. And they did.
And they did the point here is not that building weapons for Hitler is morally equivalent to building a weapons for a democratic regime like that of the U S the point is that scientists commonly attribute to themselves noble sounding motives, such as patriotism, that don't necessarily have anything to do with their real motives. And know, this practice is not limited to those who build weapon for dictorial regimes. So there's two, we've got Elan and Von Braun, and isn't it interesting that both of them were leaders in rocketry in their time.
Isn't it interesting that that was in 1930 when Von Braun did it? Isn't it interesting that it's close to 2030 now? Is it interesting that the same ideas that plague our nation today, plague the nations of other countries then almost exactly right. The world doesn't repeat history, doesn't repeat, but it rhymes and we're close to the same thing.
Speaker 1 (36m 15s): Let's find another example
Speaker 2 (36m 18s): In the United States, the development of the first atomic bomb was directed by a physicist named J Robert Oppenheimer in a speech delivered on November 2nd, 45 to the scientists, to the scientists, to the scientists who had participated in the bond project at Los Alamos, New Mexico, Oppenheimer remarked. One always has to worry that what people say of their motives is not adequate Oppenheimer, then ran through the usual excuses that scientists gave for working on atomic bomb.
The Nazis might have gotten the bomb first. There was no place in the world where the development of atomic weapons would have had a smaller chance of leading disaster than in the U S the real importance of the scientists work, lay not in weapons, but in the benefits that atomic energy would bring to mankind, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, Oppenheimer noted that all the rationalizations had more, less validity, but insisted that the real reason why the scientists had developed the bomb was that for them, their work was a personal need, an organic necessity scientists, and Oppenheimer's view lived by a philosophy according to which the acquisition and diffusion of knowledge was an end in itself independently of whether it brought any practical benefit to the human race.
The implications of Oppenheimer speech are evident, even though Oppenheimer did not state them, clearly scientists work not for the benefit of humanity, but in order to satisfy their own needs while Oppenheimer probably believed that science did on balance benefit humanity, he recognized that the justification of science in terms of benefit to humanity was essentially a rationalization that did not represent scientists real motives. It is significant that the printed version of this speech found among Oppenheimer's papers was marked.
This material is not for public release. A revised version will probably appear soon in one of the scientific journals. In fact, however, the speech seems never to have been published in revised form or otherwise prior to its inclusion in Smith. And Wiener's book about Oppenheimer. You see on some level, as humans, as people, especially people in positions of authority, we want to be remembered.
We, we do things to do them, and it's important that everybody understand just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something that's too that's too. That's fine. Another one, Siemens, everybody knows the defense contractor, Siemens, right? Siemens was a 19th century electrical engineer who invented the self exciting generator and made other important advances in the applications of electricity in a letter dated December 25th, 1887, Siemens described his motives.
Are you guys ready for this classic? Certainly I have striven for profit and wealth, but not mainly in order to enjoy them rather to gain the means for the execution of other projects and undertakings and by my success to win recognition of the correctness of my procedure and the usefulness of my work. Therefore from my youth upward, I have yearned to establish a worldwide firm such as that of fooder, which would assure not only to myself, but also to my successors power and esteem in the world.
And the means also of raising my sisters and other near relatives to higher standards of life. I regard our business as only secondary, a source of wealth. For me, it is rather a kingdom that I have founded and that I hope to leave intact to my successes for further creative work. You understand, it's not, it's not a legacy of bettering humanity.
It's a legacy of conquering. It's a legacy of power. There's not a word about the benefit of humanity, but if you notice he puts the importance in his speech, on the execution of projects, undertakings, creative work for their own sake, it goes deeper.
We're going to get there. We're going to get there. You know, some people think about, so we've, we've talked about rocketry and weaponry and electricity
Speaker 1 (41m 48s): Oppenheimer.
Speaker 2 (41m 51s): Let's talk about another, another area of science scientists who work in the fields, having an obviously humanitarian purpose, such as the treatment of disease are motivated by a desire to benefit the human race. Right? How about, how about the biologist? They clearly care about making humankind better, right? In some cases, perhaps, but in general, I think not, this is from a bacteriologist name Zinsser and this is what he wrote.
Never having had any close association with workers in the field of infectious disease. He shared this misconception of the noble motives, which impelled these queer people and not quite understanding how anyone could be impelled by noble motives. He asked us how do bacteriologists get that way? As a matter of fact, men go into this branch of work from a number of motives. The last of which is a self conscious desire to do good.
Did you hear it? Let me read that part again. As a matter of fact, men go into this branch of work from a number of motives. The last of which is a self conscious desire to do good. The point is that it remains one of the few sporting propositions left for individuals who feel the need of a certain amount of excitement. Infectious disease is one of the few genuine adventures left in the world about the only genuine sporting proposition that remains unimpaired by the relentless domestication of a once free living human species is the war against these ferocious little fellow creatures.
How about Einstein? You guys think about him, was his work motivated to benefit humanity when you guys think Let's dig in a little bit In 1917, Einstein wrote our entire much praise, technological progress, and civilization generally could be compared to an ax in the hand of a pathological criminal.
This is from Einstein's own writings, our entire much praise, technological progress and civilization generally could be compared to an ax in the hand of a pathological criminal. It is therefore difficult to conceive of any altruistic motive for Einstein scientific work. Einstein must have realized that any advance in physics would be likely to have practical applications and therefore to continue to the technological progress that he had compared to an ax in the hand of a criminal.
Yet he continued his work in theoretical physics until very late in life, even after he had seen the development of nuclear weapons to which his own research had contributed. So why did he continue his work? It may have been a kind of compulsion maybe toward the end of his life. He wrote, I cannot tear myself away from my work. It has me in her exonerate obli in its clutches. Okay. Let's think about this a little bit more, whether it was a compulsion or not Einstein scientific word had nothing to do with any desire to benefit the human race in an autobiography that he wrote at the age of 67, Einstein described his reasons for devoting himself to science as a small child who was already oppressed by a sense of the vanity or emptiness of hoping and striving.
This suggests a depressive and defeatist mentality. Einstein moreover seems to have been too delicate, a child to face the Workday world for. He saw at an early age, what he called the cruelty of the busy effort that was necessary in order to make a living. At first, he tried to escape from the painful feelings by becoming deeply religious, but at the age of 12, he lost his faith as a result of reading scientific books that disprove the tales of the Bible.
He then turned for solace to science itself, which provided him with a paradise that replaced a religious paradise. He lost, it does appear as that for Einstein scientific work was not only a surrogate activity, but also an escape from a world that he found too harsh. In any case, it is certain that Einstein turned to science solely in order to satisfy his personal needs, nowhere in his autobiography. Did he suggest any ways in which his research might improve the lot of the human race?
You guys getting this, getting it all figured out. There's a few more. Let me just, let me just, let me just share to drive the point home a little bit longer. Guys. Let me try to explain. I think by maybe defining ideology, I can better help people understand the situation.
If I were to explain our ideology as, as the following ideology offers a different version of the relation between the motive and what it motivates, the materials, which compose an ideology and which it organizes can face the full light of day, so to speak. They're not only allowable, but honorable. And they constantly seek to affirm the relationship with the recognized social values.
The aspirations of the believer are translated into ethical and social terms by ideology. That's, that's hard to think about. I know, and I couldn't break it down any more simplistic than that, but I will read it again so that you can take a moment to mow it over in your head. Ideology offers a different version of the relationship between the motive and what it motivates, the materials, which compose an ideology, and what should organize is can face the full light of day.
So to speak. They're not only allowable, but honorable. And they constantly seek to affirm their relationship with the recognized social values. The aspirations of the believer are translated into ethical and social terms by ideology. But the ideology that represents science as a humanitarian enterprise is belayed by the actual behavior of scientists. The image of scientists as dedicated humanitarians are bridging at it originating at a time when too many people, it seemed plausible to assume that scientific and technological progress were unequivocally beneficial.
And when scientific word usually was not very can't think of the word respected, I guess, or Ron, I can't think of it. An occasional applied scientist might become rich. We've already noticed the case of Siemens and Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite.
He provides another example, but typically the scientists toiled in the laboratory year after year on a professor's meager salary for sheer love of the work. Hence he gave the impression of being an unselfish idealist. A few scientists even refused opportunity opportunities to profit financially from their research. Thus wrote again, the discover of x-ray photography donated the money from his Nobel prize to a university, and both he and the curries who discovered radium declined to Pat in the processes they had invented.
So there's nothing surprising about the fact that scientists acquired a reputation as unselfish benefactors of mankind, which in some cases, no doubt they believe themselves to be. But all that changed during the course of world war II, when science demonstrated its crucial importance as an instrument of power, that's according to Norbert Wiener, a distinguished mathematician and pioneer computer scientists wrote in 56, the face, the ideas and the motivations of science all changed during the course of world war II.
When science demonstrated its crucial importance as an instrument of power. And most previous times the personnel of science had been seeded by the austerity of the work and the scant thinness of the pickings. Thus an ambitious man with slightly antisocial tendencies or to put it more politely, indifferent to spending other people's money would formerly have avoided a scientific career as if it were the plague itself. From the time of war on these adventurers, who would have started out as stock promoters or lights of the insurance business have been invading science just like today, our best and brightest go into finance, come up with derivatives of way to use money, to make money without building anything.
I think you guys get the point. Why do we go into the motivations of scientists? Why did I give you examples of Wernher Von Braun, Siemens, Elon Musk. I gave you all those examples for the same reason I gave you the, the story about the acts and the Aborigines.
The motivations of scientists are not altruistic. The motivations of scientists are not to better humanity. Even when we think the scientists that we are fond of, like Elon Musk, they fail to understand complexity and they fail to understand the law of unintended consequences. And the reason we bring all this up is because the government, in which the United nations,
Speaker 0 (53m 26s): The Silicon valleys, the bill Gates, the United nations, they want to bring in a technocratic government, which is ruled by science. They don't truly understand the longterm unintended consequences that it's going to create. And again, in closing, we are right now on the cusp of the thirties. Do you truly understand that history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.
We are on the doorstep of the next world war. We are on the very doorstep of calamity, financial chaos, globalism versus nationalism it's coming. And while I can't change any of it, I can make you aware of it. I love you alone.
connectography - Khanna
Technological slavery - Ted Kaczinski
Transcript:
Speaker 0 (0s): Good morning. All my friends, Hey guys, doing that there. I missed you yesterday. I was thinking about you. I was like, I wonder what everybody's doing. I wonder if they miss me cause you know what? Dammit, I miss you guys. I miss you guys, man. But I have a little time to think yesterday. And I've been going down the deep dark rabbit hole, the deep, the rabbit hole of technology rising in the pathway of supply chains and mapping the future of global civilization.
And I've been getting into that book, Parag, Conner, and I've been comparing and contrasting it with Patrick Wood. And I came up with a little bit of analysis and I just want to run it by you guys here and to let you know what I think, I think that what you're seeing right now is the inevitable clash of civilizations between the United States and China. It's a clash of cultures. It's a clash of ideas. It's a clash of governing.
It's a clash of leadership styles. I think there's something called the acidities trap. And that is when a young power is coming up and will soon take the place of the older power, much like the U S did to Britain. And if you go back in history, you can look that up and check it out. So I know most people can't see this, but you can listen to it. So I will work hard and try to describe exactly the maps that I saw so that I can paint you a mental picture of them.
Hopefully there'll be clear if you close your eyes to think of a map of China for all my friends in Europe, and this will be way easier for you than my friends in America. Alright. That means to all my friends in America, but to step your game up, but to start checking out a globe, I'm just playing. I can talk a little shit to you guys, cause I love you. Okay. So close your eyes. Think of China and then think about the coast of China and then draw with your finger.
A small circle around all the little cities. Well, they're not so little, but all the cities along the coastline of China, they're like their own entities. The cities in China, that economic model is a lot like the States in the United States, except they're based on the city model. That would mean that the governor of that city is a lot like the president has a lot more authority and is governed by looser laws.
As long as you achieve the goal that is set forth by the governing body of the nation, you're free to utilize whatever methods you need to use in order to accomplish that goal. Now close your eyes and think of the United States. You can think of all the different States and all the lines that are crossed and
Speaker 1 (3m 32s): States are a lot larger than cities, especially
Speaker 0 (3m 40s): In the United States because the United States is so vast and so big. There are some States that are not economic powerhouses. There are some States that in fact, don't provide a whole lot of economic resources to the whole. And on the flip side, there are some States that are like the seventh largest economy in the world. But what's important to think about is how each country has divided up the authority in the U S we have the president congresses, but each state is its own entity in China.
They have the mega city model. And I'm going to argue that the mega city model is in fact, the preferred method for technocratic government and that you're seeing something like that happen in the United States. I wrote a little bit on this subject. I'd like to read that to you now. I think what you're going to see in the U S is like a devolution from nation to Federation, to mega city economic model.
For some time, the politicians wall street and media has spoken about a potential financial crisis. We know that the trade war between the U S and China is quickly escalating. I often think that if history has a way of not necessarily repeating, but rhyming that the linguistic pathway of a trade war, currency, war, and world war may be on the horizon for the last few decades. The term globalization was thought to be the answer to our planet's most pressing issues.
The social engineer's sought to structure our planet like a giant corporation. One in which the top 1% could whipsaw the labor of third world nations against one another forever. Cutting the cost while increasing productivity, a diverse group of economic minded executives from all countries found themselves cloaked in the Gildan golden robes of greed, a bonded brotherhood who could not conceive that their demise was built into the very foundation on which they stood.
Allow me to further explain some of the maps that I had previously talked about and give my opinion on the current economic crisis. In the first image, that's the one we spoke about China and the city model does efficient and that a central planning authority can build roads, rails, ports, and harbors, regardless of what the population says or does the central government can come and kick everybody out and say, we're building something here.
I don't care how long your family has been here. I don't care what your ties are. This is the most efficient spot for this port and we're building it. So beat it. Also, I think it's important to note right here that the Chinese model, while it still has trappings of communist behavior, it is in fact, a full blown technocracy. This allows for rapid growth ever increasing production rates consumption, and the rule by science, better known as technocracy Here in America.
As we began to hear what Ross Perot described as a giant sucking sound, we soon were able to see the emptiness in the soul of the United States of America. Big business saw a rapid reduction in costs and increase in profits. Politicians watched and Slack jot ecstasy at the thought of wielding such authority over their citizens. Like most lustful relationships. It didn't take long to realize this relationship was unsustainable.
China was like a sultry seductive succubus sneaking off in the middle of the night to satiate her carnal desires and who could blame her, the bellicose big bellied impotence of wall street, fat cats who claim the ability to have infinite stamina. We're lucky to pull the gun from the holster room, but I was shooting their foot
Speaker 1 (7m 60s): Right here.
Speaker 0 (8m 3s): That's where we begin to see the breakup. It wasn't one of <inaudible> books that I read his story about Hillary Clinton. He was at a cocktail party where he had a few moments to speak with the former first lady as the conversation was wrapping up. He asked the question to her, why is it that so many men in business and politics have only the most vile things to say about you? Hillary Clinton's answer was, I think it's because I remind all of them of their first wife.
I thought that was hilarious, but that is exactly how big business and politicians are beginning to see our current relationship with China. It's gonna be a messy divorce. It's not going to be pretty. And in fact, I would argue that you can already see the children fighting, being used as leverage, just like in all horrible divorces. The children are used to cause harm to the mother and the father through use as some sort of a divisive wedge to break up the, The wheel that has an instrument of hate against the other person Already.
You can see the children fighting, being used as leverage, be it in Hong Kong, against their mother, like the Hong Kong protests being used to destabilize the mainland of China and equally the BLM movement in the United States being used against the father. The same way the student protest in Hong Kong are being used to destabilize China. It is in fact, the very same way that the BLM movement is being used as a tool of division to destabilize America.
Speaker 1 (10m 3s): Yeah,
Speaker 0 (10m 7s): We are going to be divorced and our assets will be split. This brings me to the description of the second map. This map is what the USA is going to become, unless there is some sort of intervention for those of you just listening. This is a map where the United States is not broken up into States, but in fact, regions, territories think of California being one. And then the Northwest being another one, the Midwest being another, the Southern States, compromising of Texas, new Orleans and Florida being port areas, the East coast from New York to Boston being a financial hub.
Think of the United States, not the map that you normally see, but as divided up into five to six territories, a Federation, if you will, Under the guise of sustainable development, climate change and diversity, our country has been divided a series of Trojan horses to sneak in the shock troops of despair. Instead of a nation, we will devolve into a Federation.
Then the transformation to a mega city model will be easily attainable to understand the city model, think of Singapore. And by that, I mean, think about the geography of where it lies. Think about the geography. That's important because that's how supply chains work to further add this conversation.
I want you to think about in the United States, where are the riots taking place throughout the world? Where the rise taking place in your country? Are they in strategic areas of your country? Are they in port cities? Are they in parts of your country that are the bread basket? And what I mean by that is where all the food is being farmed.
What about COVID? Whereas COVID hitting your country. Could you make the case that COVID is hitting the world the hardest in spots that are strategic locations for supply chains? And if you can make that argument, could you take it one step further and think that these areas are being secured for supply chains? How does COVID match up with the Chinese belt and road initiative in the U S there's a lot of States that are being really locked down.
I think of California, I think of New York. And these are in fact Meijer's strategic areas and what's happening to those places. Well, right now there's financial calamity. But if you take a few minutes to think about the longterm economic ramifications of these areas being hit, what does that mean? Well, it means that eventually, if we do have a financial crisis, people are moving out of those places, at least for now.
I think that means that you'll be able to pick up property. They're really cheap ports, especially if you were part of the financial institution. Isn't it interesting that there's been so much financial corruption since COVID now I know I have a lot of listeners in different parts of the world, and I know that you may not be 100% of breast on what actually is happening.
And I don't, I don't think anybody truly is. However, let me fill in some people that are not in the U S some of the things that thus some of the things that us in the U S have seen as far as economic malfeasance, we have seen is the biggest transformation of wealth from working people to the richest. 1%, We've seen a transfer of wealth on such a grand scale that it's almost unthinkable the disregard for the dollar.
There was recently a government policy that in very vague terms allowed anyone in the USA who could prove they had a business to apply for a loan of up to $2 million that would be given to them without any scrutiny. And there was so much fraud that happened.
It's also interesting to point out that on that particular stimulus deal, that the banks in the United States made $12 billion in processing fees, $12 billion. I would argue that these particular stimulus packages for the people are in fact, just bailouts for the corporations. They are in fact ways to try and keep American business afloat so that they cannot be hollowed out by foreign entities.
Additionally, you could also say that this is the exact transformation
Speaker 1 (16m 23s): <inaudible>
Speaker 0 (16m 26s): That we talked about earlier. This is money being pumped from the very last working Americans from the very last system into the new Chinese style American system. In order for us to have a Federation in the United States, there must be devolution. We must break up the initial 50 States and where's the money going to come from? Well, the money is going to come from the transfer of wealth that we just saw. There's going to be what is known as consolidation.
And that's why the mom and pops bots are going to be run into the ground. They're not allowed to go to work. They're not allowed to open up, whereas any company that has over 500 people while the government doesn't tell them what to do, but anything less than 500, the government will tell you, Hey, you guys, they're going to make it so that you can't work. They're going to make those places go out of business. So there's zero competition for the biggest people. And when I say biggest people, I mean companies like Amazon, multinational corporations,
Speaker 1 (17m 35s): <inaudible>,
Speaker 0 (17m 37s): You're going to see the consolidation of small businesses into the big ones. You're going to see the consolidation of power into the city, the mega city that was made popular by China. And I think that's happening not only in the U S but throughout the nation, a good way to help you understand this. It's so hard to see when you're in the situation. You know what I mean by that? Like, if you're in a relationship with somebody it's difficult, especially if you're really blinded by lust, or you're real, you're a little bit younger, or you, your judgment is clouded by emotion, but all of us have had, have had a friend where you could see the relationship and just know this is never going to work, but the person in that relationship can't see it.
The reason I bring that up is if you want to know what's happening in your country, then tune into the happenings of another country. Cause what we're seeing around the world is the same thing. And it doesn't matter if it's black or white or yellow or red, or does it matter how round your eyes are, what color your hair is what's happening in our country is happening in your country.
And I think it's a lot like 1930, I think it's eerily similar. And I think it would have eerily similar results. You know, when you talk about sustainable development, when you talk about agenda 21, when you talk about a more diverse culture, when you talk about equality and diversity, what you're really talking about is trying to use the scientific method to make the world a better place.
And that is the very definition of technocracy. You could make the case that Germany in world war II was a technology oracy in fact, you know what let's let's, let's, let's move down that path for a minute, because I would also like to reference, are you from, is everyone familiar with Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber? I get it. I don't know. I don't agree with everything that that guy did.
However, if you read his book, technological slavery, he forecasted a lot of what's about to happen. And I want to kind of go down that path right now and explain a little bit about why that guy did what he did and how it pertains to our situation today. And in order to introduce that topic to this conversation, I want to start off with a story. And that story is about a Aborigine tribe in the sixties called the, your Yanet and the year Yon.
It were a Aborigine tribe somewhere down between New Zealand and Australia on an Island, I believe. And they, they somehow were able to stay uncontacted and have their tribal unit and their tribal way of life intact until the 1960s or seventies.
And that's when a that's when a social experiment was tried on them. That gives us insight into all our behaviors and what that social experiment was, was that in the sixties, a tra a group of missionaries went to this Island and they handed something out. But before I tell you what they handed out, let me tell you the main technology of the, your unit on that tribe.
The number one technology they had was a stone ax, and it was very difficult to make this stone ax. In fact, only the elder men really knew how to make the stone ax, but the stone ax was, it was symbolic of leadership. It was symbolic of their culture. It was the, it was the leading technology of their time. And thus, whoever could wield that ax, whoever could build that ax held a special position in positions of authority.
And it was always the elder men. Now I hear you it's listen. You can make the case that chauvinistic or whatever, but that's not the point of the story. The point of the story is to talk about the actual war technology. And that was the stone ax and that in a weird way, because that was their main technology. That's kind of what their society was built upon. So now that I filled you in there, this tribe of vision, I'm sorry, the group of missionaries came down and they thought, wouldn't it be nice to bring this tribe who only has stone axes, a big shipment, a large crate of steel well-made axes.
And so they did, they brought down a big chest and they went to the Island and they, they landed there. And when they landed, of course, everyone was skeptical of who are these new people bringing gifts, right? The old adage of beware of people bringing gifts. So the elders of the tribe, the men who actually had their stone axes, they kind of stayed away. They didn't want any part to do with these odd looking people that seem to be invading their Island for a short time. But because this group of missionaries were handing out axes, you see the elders in the tribe, they, they had an ax, their status was safe and they were safe in their culture.
Cause that ax had been a symbol of their culture for so long, but you know, who didn't have the axes, the women and the children. If they wanted to use an ax, they had to go and, and, you know, ask the elder, Hey, can I use the ax? I needed to do this chore. I needed that. However, when the missionaries brought these axes down, the children and the women, now they had their axes. And in fact, they were better axes that were better made. They were stronger. And so the missionaries documented over a course of, I think it was three months.
What happened because of any guesses, what happened? He was gonna take a guess before I go any further, come on, you guys know what happened. Well, according to the documents of the missionaries, they were in a very short time. It fundamentally changed the way that society was working. One of the very first consequences I'll call them unintended consequences were that the amount of work almost stopped, you see, they no longer needed the stone ax.
So all the chores, all the, the craftsmanship, all that was done relatively quickly and the people in the tribe began spending more time sleeping. And it was at that point in time in some of the missionary logs where they began to see, Oh, what do we do here? That was like their first inclination of maybe this isn't a good idea because the D stone act, because the acts were one of the most valuable things in the tribe, the new axes became more valuable than the elders.
And with it, with it changed their culture. It changed their culture because the women or the children no longer had to go to the elder men and ask him, Hey, may I use that ax? It also broke up the, these tribal ceremonies that were surrounded, that were about the acts. It broke up the guilds of men who were able to make the acts. It destroyed a complex social network.
You know, the, their social structure had been made up of daily life surrounding their technology over a thousand years. And in a few months, boom, it was all gone. It was all gone. Now, the reason that story is important is because I think that it lays out the very foundation of introducing new technology to groups of people. Be it tribes, be it cities, be it continents, we're all humans.
And even though we may feel as if we're different today than a tribe of indigenous Aborigines 60 years ago, but really not that different or really not that different. In fact, people argue that if today you went into a room and took out all the screens, be it TVs or iPads or phones, that room would look exactly like it did in the fifties. So think about that. However, upon introducing new technology to a group of people or a society, one must understand three points, three components,
Speaker 1 (27m 43s): Okay.
Speaker 0 (27m 45s): Form function. And meaning In the case of the ax, the form was the technology. It was a better form of technology. The steel ax versus the stone ax, the function of the technology
Speaker 1 (28m 10s): <inaudible>
Speaker 0 (28m 16s): Was to hold together the hierarchy, the status, the group cohesiveness amongst helping prepare for the daily activities you see in both the tribe and the, And the missionaries had somewhat of an understanding of both of those, the form and the function. However, what neither of them understood about the technology was the meaning.
The meaning neither understood the meaning Because the meaning was determined over time through absorption of the technology, into the receiving culture.
Speaker 1 (29m 0s): <inaudible>
Speaker 0 (29m 6s): And that's the same problem we have today with Are forms of technology. And specifically, when I say technology, I mean this new idea of technocratic government, we understand the form. We understand the function, but we do not have any idea of what the meaning is. And nor do these people in charge who think that they can better provide for the planet using a rule by science.
Let me give you a quick, quick story, or I'm going to lead into this. Cause what I want this to lead into is I want this to lead into you. And I want to argue that the motivations of scientists are not what you think. In fact, the motivations of modern day scientists are much like the motivations of all people who find themselves in positions of authority.
They are dangerous. They are, they are shrouded with egoistic narrow sight. They are problematic to say the least. They're very shortsighted immediately. What comes to mind for me is Elon Musk. If one loves this guy, Hey Ilan, you're doing great, man.
Good job, Elan. Nice job on the car. Have you have you just taken a few minutes to think about the irony in which that guy runs his life? If you listen to interviews with him, he's one of the number one components against AI. He's the first one to tell you that artificial intelligence is a huge problem and it may be the detriment of our entire planet. Don't believe me, look them up.
Look them up on YouTube. Look them up on any interview. He is the number one guy to bring out this component. You could listen to him on Rogan. He gets all quiet and he's scared. And he's like, Oh no, this, this is probably going to be what undoes us. Right? He doesn't mince words. That's what he thinks. However, he's probably the leading force rushing us down this road of technocratic government. He's the number one person training AI in our country. What is neural link?
Neural link is putting a chip in your brain. Is that not going to be the very foundation on which our AI is going to learn? How to understand what it's like to be human, if that's even possible, if it's even possible, how can Elon, Musk's sit up here and run his mouth about how dangerous AI is, and then spend his entire life trying to create it. How can you do that?
I'm asking you, you see now you're beginning to understand the motivations of scientists. It's not to better humanity. Think of the Elon Musk situation. I just told you, he's not trying to create a better humanity.
Speaker 2 (32m 42s): He may tell you that, but is that what he's doing? No. His research is going to lead to the very thing that he thinks is going to destroy humanity. Yet he's pushing forward at a pace that is not only incredibly problematic, but it's unsustainable, right? We're running from the very thing that could free us.
As one example, I'll have to give you a few more examples. Let us think of Wernher Von Braun. Everybody remembers him, right? He was the, he was the lead scientist for the V2. Rocket was that one. He made the V2 rocket. He was Hitler's chief rocket scientist and directed development of the V two rocket that killed some 20,000 civilians in allied countries during world war II, C Von Braun claimed after the war that his motives had been quote unquote patriotic, but the while he was working for Hitler, Von Braun must have known that the Jews were being exterminated.
Since this was kind of an open secret in Germany from the end of 42 at the very latest. Now, what kind of patriotism would lead a man to build a weapons for a regime that exterminates entire ethnic groups from sheer spite? It is sufficiently clear. I would argue that patriotism was merely an excuse for Von Braun and that all he really wanted was to build rockets for their own sake.
Right. You know, as world war two, neared its end in 45 Braun, and many of his associates close to surrender to the U S I'm sorry, as world war II, neared its end in 45 Braun. And many of his associates chose to surrender to the U S where they believed they would likely receive support for their rocket research. And they did.
And they did the point here is not that building weapons for Hitler is morally equivalent to building a weapons for a democratic regime like that of the U S the point is that scientists commonly attribute to themselves noble sounding motives, such as patriotism, that don't necessarily have anything to do with their real motives. And know, this practice is not limited to those who build weapon for dictorial regimes. So there's two, we've got Elan and Von Braun, and isn't it interesting that both of them were leaders in rocketry in their time.
Isn't it interesting that that was in 1930 when Von Braun did it? Isn't it interesting that it's close to 2030 now? Is it interesting that the same ideas that plague our nation today, plague the nations of other countries then almost exactly right. The world doesn't repeat history, doesn't repeat, but it rhymes and we're close to the same thing.
Speaker 1 (36m 15s): Let's find another example
Speaker 2 (36m 18s): In the United States, the development of the first atomic bomb was directed by a physicist named J Robert Oppenheimer in a speech delivered on November 2nd, 45 to the scientists, to the scientists, to the scientists who had participated in the bond project at Los Alamos, New Mexico, Oppenheimer remarked. One always has to worry that what people say of their motives is not adequate Oppenheimer, then ran through the usual excuses that scientists gave for working on atomic bomb.
The Nazis might have gotten the bomb first. There was no place in the world where the development of atomic weapons would have had a smaller chance of leading disaster than in the U S the real importance of the scientists work, lay not in weapons, but in the benefits that atomic energy would bring to mankind, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, Oppenheimer noted that all the rationalizations had more, less validity, but insisted that the real reason why the scientists had developed the bomb was that for them, their work was a personal need, an organic necessity scientists, and Oppenheimer's view lived by a philosophy according to which the acquisition and diffusion of knowledge was an end in itself independently of whether it brought any practical benefit to the human race.
The implications of Oppenheimer speech are evident, even though Oppenheimer did not state them, clearly scientists work not for the benefit of humanity, but in order to satisfy their own needs while Oppenheimer probably believed that science did on balance benefit humanity, he recognized that the justification of science in terms of benefit to humanity was essentially a rationalization that did not represent scientists real motives. It is significant that the printed version of this speech found among Oppenheimer's papers was marked.
This material is not for public release. A revised version will probably appear soon in one of the scientific journals. In fact, however, the speech seems never to have been published in revised form or otherwise prior to its inclusion in Smith. And Wiener's book about Oppenheimer. You see on some level, as humans, as people, especially people in positions of authority, we want to be remembered.
We, we do things to do them, and it's important that everybody understand just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something that's too that's too. That's fine. Another one, Siemens, everybody knows the defense contractor, Siemens, right? Siemens was a 19th century electrical engineer who invented the self exciting generator and made other important advances in the applications of electricity in a letter dated December 25th, 1887, Siemens described his motives.
Are you guys ready for this classic? Certainly I have striven for profit and wealth, but not mainly in order to enjoy them rather to gain the means for the execution of other projects and undertakings and by my success to win recognition of the correctness of my procedure and the usefulness of my work. Therefore from my youth upward, I have yearned to establish a worldwide firm such as that of fooder, which would assure not only to myself, but also to my successors power and esteem in the world.
And the means also of raising my sisters and other near relatives to higher standards of life. I regard our business as only secondary, a source of wealth. For me, it is rather a kingdom that I have founded and that I hope to leave intact to my successes for further creative work. You understand, it's not, it's not a legacy of bettering humanity.
It's a legacy of conquering. It's a legacy of power. There's not a word about the benefit of humanity, but if you notice he puts the importance in his speech, on the execution of projects, undertakings, creative work for their own sake, it goes deeper.
We're going to get there. We're going to get there. You know, some people think about, so we've, we've talked about rocketry and weaponry and electricity
Speaker 1 (41m 48s): Oppenheimer.
Speaker 2 (41m 51s): Let's talk about another, another area of science scientists who work in the fields, having an obviously humanitarian purpose, such as the treatment of disease are motivated by a desire to benefit the human race. Right? How about, how about the biologist? They clearly care about making humankind better, right? In some cases, perhaps, but in general, I think not, this is from a bacteriologist name Zinsser and this is what he wrote.
Never having had any close association with workers in the field of infectious disease. He shared this misconception of the noble motives, which impelled these queer people and not quite understanding how anyone could be impelled by noble motives. He asked us how do bacteriologists get that way? As a matter of fact, men go into this branch of work from a number of motives. The last of which is a self conscious desire to do good.
Did you hear it? Let me read that part again. As a matter of fact, men go into this branch of work from a number of motives. The last of which is a self conscious desire to do good. The point is that it remains one of the few sporting propositions left for individuals who feel the need of a certain amount of excitement. Infectious disease is one of the few genuine adventures left in the world about the only genuine sporting proposition that remains unimpaired by the relentless domestication of a once free living human species is the war against these ferocious little fellow creatures.
How about Einstein? You guys think about him, was his work motivated to benefit humanity when you guys think Let's dig in a little bit In 1917, Einstein wrote our entire much praise, technological progress, and civilization generally could be compared to an ax in the hand of a pathological criminal.
This is from Einstein's own writings, our entire much praise, technological progress and civilization generally could be compared to an ax in the hand of a pathological criminal. It is therefore difficult to conceive of any altruistic motive for Einstein scientific work. Einstein must have realized that any advance in physics would be likely to have practical applications and therefore to continue to the technological progress that he had compared to an ax in the hand of a criminal.
Yet he continued his work in theoretical physics until very late in life, even after he had seen the development of nuclear weapons to which his own research had contributed. So why did he continue his work? It may have been a kind of compulsion maybe toward the end of his life. He wrote, I cannot tear myself away from my work. It has me in her exonerate obli in its clutches. Okay. Let's think about this a little bit more, whether it was a compulsion or not Einstein scientific word had nothing to do with any desire to benefit the human race in an autobiography that he wrote at the age of 67, Einstein described his reasons for devoting himself to science as a small child who was already oppressed by a sense of the vanity or emptiness of hoping and striving.
This suggests a depressive and defeatist mentality. Einstein moreover seems to have been too delicate, a child to face the Workday world for. He saw at an early age, what he called the cruelty of the busy effort that was necessary in order to make a living. At first, he tried to escape from the painful feelings by becoming deeply religious, but at the age of 12, he lost his faith as a result of reading scientific books that disprove the tales of the Bible.
He then turned for solace to science itself, which provided him with a paradise that replaced a religious paradise. He lost, it does appear as that for Einstein scientific work was not only a surrogate activity, but also an escape from a world that he found too harsh. In any case, it is certain that Einstein turned to science solely in order to satisfy his personal needs, nowhere in his autobiography. Did he suggest any ways in which his research might improve the lot of the human race?
You guys getting this, getting it all figured out. There's a few more. Let me just, let me just, let me just share to drive the point home a little bit longer. Guys. Let me try to explain. I think by maybe defining ideology, I can better help people understand the situation.
If I were to explain our ideology as, as the following ideology offers a different version of the relation between the motive and what it motivates, the materials, which compose an ideology and which it organizes can face the full light of day, so to speak. They're not only allowable, but honorable. And they constantly seek to affirm the relationship with the recognized social values.
The aspirations of the believer are translated into ethical and social terms by ideology. That's, that's hard to think about. I know, and I couldn't break it down any more simplistic than that, but I will read it again so that you can take a moment to mow it over in your head. Ideology offers a different version of the relationship between the motive and what it motivates, the materials, which compose an ideology, and what should organize is can face the full light of day.
So to speak. They're not only allowable, but honorable. And they constantly seek to affirm their relationship with the recognized social values. The aspirations of the believer are translated into ethical and social terms by ideology. But the ideology that represents science as a humanitarian enterprise is belayed by the actual behavior of scientists. The image of scientists as dedicated humanitarians are bridging at it originating at a time when too many people, it seemed plausible to assume that scientific and technological progress were unequivocally beneficial.
And when scientific word usually was not very can't think of the word respected, I guess, or Ron, I can't think of it. An occasional applied scientist might become rich. We've already noticed the case of Siemens and Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite.
He provides another example, but typically the scientists toiled in the laboratory year after year on a professor's meager salary for sheer love of the work. Hence he gave the impression of being an unselfish idealist. A few scientists even refused opportunity opportunities to profit financially from their research. Thus wrote again, the discover of x-ray photography donated the money from his Nobel prize to a university, and both he and the curries who discovered radium declined to Pat in the processes they had invented.
So there's nothing surprising about the fact that scientists acquired a reputation as unselfish benefactors of mankind, which in some cases, no doubt they believe themselves to be. But all that changed during the course of world war II, when science demonstrated its crucial importance as an instrument of power, that's according to Norbert Wiener, a distinguished mathematician and pioneer computer scientists wrote in 56, the face, the ideas and the motivations of science all changed during the course of world war II.
When science demonstrated its crucial importance as an instrument of power. And most previous times the personnel of science had been seeded by the austerity of the work and the scant thinness of the pickings. Thus an ambitious man with slightly antisocial tendencies or to put it more politely, indifferent to spending other people's money would formerly have avoided a scientific career as if it were the plague itself. From the time of war on these adventurers, who would have started out as stock promoters or lights of the insurance business have been invading science just like today, our best and brightest go into finance, come up with derivatives of way to use money, to make money without building anything.
I think you guys get the point. Why do we go into the motivations of scientists? Why did I give you examples of Wernher Von Braun, Siemens, Elon Musk. I gave you all those examples for the same reason I gave you the, the story about the acts and the Aborigines.
The motivations of scientists are not altruistic. The motivations of scientists are not to better humanity. Even when we think the scientists that we are fond of, like Elon Musk, they fail to understand complexity and they fail to understand the law of unintended consequences. And the reason we bring all this up is because the government, in which the United nations,
Speaker 0 (53m 26s): The Silicon valleys, the bill Gates, the United nations, they want to bring in a technocratic government, which is ruled by science. They don't truly understand the longterm unintended consequences that it's going to create. And again, in closing, we are right now on the cusp of the thirties. Do you truly understand that history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.
We are on the doorstep of the next world war. We are on the very doorstep of calamity, financial chaos, globalism versus nationalism it's coming. And while I can't change any of it, I can make you aware of it. I love you alone.
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
