The Pete Quiñones Show - Past Ted K Episodes w/ Bird, Ryan Dawson and The Prudentialist

Episode Date: October 8, 2025

4 Hours and 23 MinutesNSFWHere's three episodes to accompany Pete and Aaron's reading of Industrial Society and Its Future.Pete and Bird From Timeline Earth Read Ted Kaczynski's - The System's Neatest TrickAn 'Uncle Ted Talk' w/ Ryan DawsonReading Ted Kaczynski's 'Why the Technological System Will Destroy Itself' w/ The PrudentialistTimeline Earth PodcastANCREPORT.comRyan's SubstackThe Prudentialist's Find My FrensPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on Twitter

Ready for huge savings, we'll mark your calendars from November 28th to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite Liddle items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Liddle, more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye. distinctive by design they move you even before you drive the new cupra plug-in hybrid range for mentor

leon and terramar now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro search cupra and discover our latest offers cupra design that moves finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from vows wagon financial services arland limited subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Discover five-star luxury at Trump Dunebeg. Unwind in our luxurious spa.

Savour sumptuous farm-fresh dining. Relax in our exquisite accommodations. Step outside and be captivated by the Wild Atlantic Surounds. Your five-star getaway, where every detail is designed with you in mind. Give the gift of a unique experience. this Christmas with vouchers from Trump, Dunbeg. Search Trump Ireland gift vouchers. Trump on Dunbiog, Kush Faragea. And we're live. Bird, how you doing, man? What's going on, Pete? How are you? Good. We had talked about getting together and doing an episode on somebody besides

Ted here, but maybe we'll put that off into the future. That was a fun one. Do you remember what we talked about? Yes, I do. Yeah, I think I'm getting ready to do like this whole. series on the subject. So I think an episode with you would be great on that. But yeah, we can wait on that. Yeah, yeah. Go back to Ted. Can I ask you a question? Sure, absolutely. What's the fascination with Ted? Matt, that's the wrong way to ask that question. Makes it sound like you have a fascination with him. What is the emphasis on Ted for you? Well, put it this way. A lot, most of the way, most of what people know about is Rush Limbaugh getting on the radio and reading from Ted's manifesto and then reading from Al Gore's manifesto and going, can you tell the difference?

Now, was that a good thing or a bad thing at the time? Well, it was a bad thing because all he was, all they concentrate on is his environmentalism. They don't concentrate on the fact that this guy lays out a, he's a psychologist, sociologist. I mean, his breakdown of why people are unfulfilled and why they're unhappy and exactly what the, what the Industrial Revolution, which he blames on the Industrial Revolution, may have done to people by depriving them of the power process. and things like that is, I mean, put it this way. After, if you understand his power process and you understand what he talks about with surrogate activities, once you really understand that, you have, you kind of have to apply it and look at it in your own life.

And when you start looking at it in your own life, you're like, holy shit, this guy's right. And I've never heard any, you know, I've never read anyone. heard anyone talk about it, talk about it the way he did, especially as he applies it to the left, but I think it applies to everyone. Okay. Yeah, because I'm not as well read on TED as you or probably a lot of the listeners. But I read what we're about to read today, and I think that it actually does provide some areas for you to be able to go off of Ted. and into other theorists who thought about the same kinds of things as he did, at least in this,

the particular purpose of this essay that he wrote here, which I think was written in the 2000s. Yeah, around 2005. So he's doing a lot. And it's in prison. He's kind of, he writes a lot of stuff. I wonder how much, like, access to, like, the television he has or do you know any of this? I don't. I mean, you know, you would think that he wouldn't want any because of who he is.

Yeah, you would think that. But he, the diagnosis, so on this part, the diagnosis is pretty good. At least, like I agree with you is what I'm saying. I think he nails a framework for the system, his favorite little phrase, that is reasonable. But I think, and he even admits this at the first part, we'll get into it more, that he's purposeful about not positively saying what the system is. he admits it which is cool I think there are other theorists who we could probably

at the end of this talk about who are perfectly willing to say what the system is and define the system along economic boundaries and boundaries that Ted just doesn't touch for whatever reason I wish we could have him for an interview so we could ask you know why why do you choose the language you choose because it's, I wouldn't call it evasive, but he constantly uses the term the system, and he even says, as you'll notice,

I'm not positively defining what system is. So it's, it's, I don't know, we'll get into it as we talk about it, because Pete, I'm definitely wondering what you think could be fit into that, you know, that shaped whole, what shape you think the system is, because I think the people who Ted pulls from,

Marxist, are perfectly willing to be like, oh, it's industrial capitalism. And in this particular essay doesn't really come up much, like as a topic. He says the system. And again, you've read more than him. So just off of that, do you have any thoughts on maybe why he uses the term the system instead of anything else? I don't know. I think he was looking for something to anthropomorphize.

I think he was trying to turn it. he's trying to make it human. There's a couple points in it, I think, especially in part three, where it seems like he's really struggling to make it into an organic being that actually has purpose. I thought something similar to that when I was reading it. What I thought was him talking about the system almost makes it sound like he's writing fiction.

Like he's writing a novel. He's trying to tell a story more than he's actually trying to tell a story more than he's actually trying to like give an example or an allegory. So if you want to, if we treat it that way, then it's, um, you just have to approach it with different lenses. It's, this is not a hardcore philosophical, logical document. This is, um, kind of a story. Yep.

Yeah. I mean, it, it really is. But, um, as we read, people will see that, um, the story is, the story comes to life. and comes to reality. So I will start reading. Okay. And you stop me. Are you going to take the reading and I'll take the commentary?

Are we reversing what we used to do? Yep. I'm going to read. And you're going to. Finally, I'm going to sit back. I'm going to do. I'm going to do what you do. I'm going to chill.

I'm going to relax. And you're going to stop me when you want to. Okay. Okay. And, hey, you stop when you want to stop too. Okay. I will. Oh, I will.

Oh, I will, believe me. Oh, yeah, okay. All right. He starts with a Jacques Lulul quote. The supreme luxury of the Society of Technical Necessity will be to grant the bonus of useless revolt and acquiescent smile. A lull is just, I mean, I have so much a little here. And it's just you pick it up, you read two pages, and you're like,

all right, now I got to stop and think about this for a week. Yes, one of those guys. Yes. One of those guys. All right. A guy who I've notoriously had said Ted has taken a lot from, might think people should go back and read him because you can be like your own Ted. Because just be your own.

Don't take that the wrong way. All right. The system has played a trick on today's would-be revolutionaries and rebels. The trick is so cute that if it had not consciously planned, if it had not been consciously planned, one would have to admire its almost mathematical elegance. Starts off with a very rough party. in way here. What the system is not. Let's begin by making clear that the system, what the system is not. The system is not George W. Bush and his advisors and appointees. It is not the cops who maltreat

protesters. It is not the CEOs of the multinational corporations. And it is not the frankenstein's in their laboratories who criminally tinker with the genes of living things. Hey, Mr. Fauci. How are you doing? All of these people are servants of the system. but in themselves they do not constitute the system. In particular, the personal and individual values, attitudes, beliefs, and behavior of all of these people may be significantly in conflict with the needs of the system. To illustrate with an example, the system requires respect for property rights, yet CEOs, cops, scientists, and politicians sometimes steal. I just want to just the system requires respect for property rights. Just, again, I want to build a case later on.

Everybody just remember that line that's very important, but he kind of just slips it in. There's other people who say exactly the same thing. Okay. So yet the system requires respect for property rights, yet CEOs, cops, scientists, and politicians sometimes steal. In speaking of stealing, we don't have to confine ourselves to actual lifting of physical objects. We can include all illegal means of acquiring properties, such as, as cheating on income tax, accepting bribes, or any other form of graft or corruption. But the fact that CEOs, cop, scientists, and politicians sometimes steal does not mean that stealing is part of the system.

On the contrary, when a cop or a politician steals something, he is rebelling against the system's requirement of respect for law and property. Yet, even when they are stealing, these people remain servants of the system as long as they publicly maintain their support for law and property. you want to stop kind of uh kind of a a cucked opinion there by ted that paying your income taxes uh not just illegal what did he say i didn't like that one uh kind of a cucked out opinion by him uh cheating on your income tax illegal means of acquiring property um i think one thing that is interesting that we probably should keep in mind is um ready for huge savings will mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge warehouse sale is back. We're talking thousands

of your favourite Liddle items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Liddle, more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye, distinctive by design. They move you even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range For Mentor, Leon and Terramar Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro Search Coopera and discover our latest offers

Coopera Design that moves Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement From Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited Subject to lending criteria Terms and conditions apply Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited Trading is Cooper Financial Services Ireland Limited

trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. He is talking about a system of tax collection. He's talking about the political system, but he's also talking about non-state actors here. So I don't know how you picture it in your head. I don't really, I feel like the, you could also use the word, the elites here? What do you think? Yeah. Yeah, he's just not using that word. And I don't think he ever uses that word in industrial society in its future as well. I don't think so. Yeah,

he's a little bit evasive on labeling a particular thing. That may be on purpose. There is something that when you get to the end of this section that I want to read, I think is really important. Sure. But you could continue. Okay. Whatever illegal acts may be committed by politicians, cops, or CEOs as individuals theft, as individuals theft, bribery, and graft are not part of the system, but diseases of the system. The less stealing there is, the better the system functions, and that is why the servants and boosters of the system always advocate obedience to the law in public, even if they may sometimes find it convenient to break the law in private.

Take another example. Although the police are the systems enforcers, police brutality is not part of the system. When the cops beat the crap out of a suspect, they are not doing the system's work. They are only letting out their own anger and hostility. The system's goal is not brutality or the expression of anger. As far as police work is concerned, the system's goal is to compel obedience to its rules and to do so with the least possible amount of disruption, violence, and bad publicity. Thus, from the system's point of view, the ideal cop is one who never gets angry, never uses any more violence than necessary, and as far as possible relies on manipulation rather than force to keep people under control.

Police brutality is only another disease of the system, not part of the system. Yeah, I mean, I think he nails it there. I hinting a little bit more towards some sort of an engine, right? That whatever system he's talking about is a system that prefers the social situation to be smooth rather than chaotic. That's all that I'm getting from that as far as constructing what the system looks like. He's just laying out an ideal. Yeah. No different than any libertarian would be laying out an ideal.

For sure. Yeah. All right. So whatever else me? Okay. For proof, look at the attitude of the media. The mainstream media almost universally condemn police brutality. Of course, the attitude of the mainstream media represents as a rule,

the consensus of opinion among the powerful classes in our society as to what is good for the system. That's, I think he nails it right there. Sure. Yeah. I mean, they're just, yeah. Okay. What has just been said about theft, graft, and police brutality applies also to issues of discrimination and victimization, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, poverty, and sweatshops. All of these are bad for the system.

For example, the more that black people feel themselves scorned or excluded, the more likely they are to turn to crime, and the less they are to educate themselves for careers that will make them useful to the system. Modern technology with its rapid, long-distance transportation and its disruption of traditional ways of life has led to the mixing of population so that nowadays people of different races, nationalities, cultures, and religions have to live

and work side by side. If people hate or reject one another on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, etc., the resulting conflicts interfere with the functioning of the system. Apart from a few old fossilized relics of the past like Jesse Helms, the leaders of the system know this very well, and that is why we are taught in school and through media to believe that racism, sexism, homophobia, and so forth, are social evils to be eliminated. Right. So again, Ted is taking the stance opposite of those who would suggest that the system operates by creating hatred and or discord and division amongst a population. He's actually saying that the optimal way the system would work is in the other direction,

keeping things smooth, keeping as few divisions amongst people. possible. Once again, the ideal. Well, I think it's interesting because I did an episode with Keith Knight recently on Matt Taibi, Taibi's 10 Rules of Hate. And this runs up against that immediately if the object is to create things that are smooth rather than things that are rough. I think that's pretty interesting. And I would probably fall on Ted's side if we're talking about the anonymous system thing that we all have a generalized. idea of what he's talking about. Okay.

No doubt some of the leaders of the system, some of the politicians, scientists, and CEOs privately feel that a woman's place is in the home or that homosexuality and interracial marriage are repugnant. But even if the majority of them felt that way, it would not mean that racism, sexism, and homophobia were part of the system. Any more than the existence of stealing among the leaders means that stealing is part of the system. Just as the system must promote respect for law and property,

the sake of its own security, the system must also discourage racism and other forms of victimization for the same reason. This is why the system, notwithstanding, any private deviation by individual members of the elite is basically committed to suppressing discrimination and victimization. I would say that that has, the system doesn't want that, but the system is getting that in spades now when 16 years ago they weren't. Right. Yeah, I don't, yes. Yes, I think whatever's being built here,

which is why I think it's important we try and come up with an idea of what it looks like. Whatever's being built here changes over time. The motivation changes over time. Nowadays, yeah, that's exactly what you do. You don't want to be encouraging, breaking up. You need to encourage things to be smooth and stay together, nationalize. For proof, look again at the attitude of the mainstream media. In spite of occasional timid dissent by a few of the most daring and reactionary commentators, media propaganda overwhelmingly favors racial and gender equality and acceptance of homosexuality and interracial marriage.

But we can't argue against that. I mean, it was like that in 2005. And now it's, but what you could argue is now that it has reached radical activist. levels in the corporate media. For sure. The system needs a population that is a meek, nonviolent, domesticated, docile, and obedient. The system needs a population that is meek, nonviolent, domestic, domesticated, docile, and obedient.

Sorry. It needs to avoid any conflict or disruption that could interfere with the orderly functioning of the social machine. In addition to suppressing racial, ethnic, religious, and other group hostilities, it also has to suppress or harness its own advantage, for its own advantage, all other tendencies that could lead to disruption or disorder, such as machismo, aggressive impulses, and any inclination to violence. Yeah, that's a great little blurb right there. A thing that I thought was, again, interesting because of the construction, the system

needs a certain kind of population, a docile one, in order to avoid disruption in the orderly functioning of the social machine. So for TED, at least in this way, whatever the system is, its job is to provide security for the social machine, whatever that is. I just figured that's important to bring up.

Oh, we might actually get an opportunity to ask him some questions then if Ryan Dawson is doing an interview with him. It would be interesting. I hope he gets it. Pretty good. I hope he gets it. Oh, yeah. For sure. Naturally, traditional, racial, and ethnic antagonisms die slowly.

Machismo aggressiveness and other violent impulses are not easily suppressed. And attitudes towards sex and gender identity are not transformed overnight. Therefore, there are many individuals who resist these changes, and the system is faced with the problem of overcoming their resistance. Now, let me ask you a question. When you see, like, in the last four to five years, this rise in trans rights, do you, is that when you read that last sentence right there or that last paragraph, especially when you see it coming from the press, Do you think that's what he's talking about? Do you think that that's what it could be applied to? Probably.

If it was in 2005 when this was published, I don't think that's what he's talking about. No, no, I'm talking about can it be applied that way? Because as an example of what he's talking about. Yeah, for sure. No, absolutely. I think that is the case. Okay. All right.

Part two. You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive by design. They move you. Even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon, and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2,000 euro.

Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited.

Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite Liddle items, all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast.

Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Liddle, more to value. How the system exploits the impulse to rebel. All of us in modern society are hemmed in by a dense network of rules and regulations. We are at the mercy of large organizations such as corporations, governments, labor unions, universities, churches, and political parties. And consequently, we are powerless.

As a result of the servitude, the powerlessness and the other invagities that the system inflicts on us, there is widespread frustration which leads to an impulse to rebel. And this is where the system plays its neatest trick. Through a brilliant sleight of hand, it turns rebellion to its own advantage. I want to say the whole line about labor unions, churches, political parties, universities, and so we're powerless. Was it Ted, who when he was talking about the left, was talking about their, victim complex?

Well, the way he describes it is that they look for a victim, but they never pick a victim who is really victimized. They always pick something that society has already decided is bad. So it's like, oh, slavery is, yeah, oh, I'm against slavery. It's like, yeah, well, who isn't? You know, it's like in 2021, who's not? Right. That's the way he describes it in part.

I would say in the first 30 sections of industrial society in its future. And, okay, and so then I just wanted to tie in. So there's a widespread frustration that leads to an impulse to rebel, and then they turn the rebellion into advantage. I guess we will see if he gives us any examples on how that plays out. I'm already on board, Pete, I'm going to let you know I'm already on board with that because this is a, and this is a, and this is a, statement that has been said many times before.

I think Marx said, I think Marx's quote is the second revolution is always parody. I think that will come back up later. I think I've always agreed with that concept. I agree with Ted's too. Derrida has a concept that the minute that a revolution is recognized, it becomes imitated. And once you start imitating revolution, it's not revolution anymore. There's no spirit behind it.

I agree with that offhand. I think the easiest way to stop something is to create a fifth column inside of it and completely undermine it and make it lame, approachable, not rebellious at all. What the original punk rocker said was the first time anyone said, hey, let's start a punk rock band. Punk rock was dead. Yeah. Yes. You get that, right? I mean, that's actually pretty brilliant.

Yes. All right. Many people do not understand the roots of their own frustration, hence their rebellion is directionless. They know that they want to rebel, but they don't know what they want to rebel against. Luckily, the system is able to fill their need by providing them with a list of standard and stereotype grievances in the name of which to rebel. Racism, homophobia, women's issues, poverty, sweatshops, the whole laundry bag of activist issues. Heat the gut. Anti-activist.

Really, definitely, Ted is an anti-activist, and I've always appreciated it. The laundry bag of activist issues is great. Well, do you know why he is against all of these issues? Not really, no. Because there's only one issue he cares about, it's the environment, and he considers these all to be a distraction. So it's, okay, so he doesn't, well, and he probably thinks that, you know, his way is, is greater than all of these other individual pathways. It's not like he thinks they're on

par with them. He just has one niche. Don't we all believe that? I guess, man. I guess. And at the end of industrial society in its future, he actually goes back to talking about the left. And one of the things that he says, which is mind boggling, and Aaron and I both just floored, says, when you put together your revolution, do not include anyone from the left. Because they're all going to be distracted by the issues that he just mentioned in that paragraph. Did he ever say anything about the right or has he only ever made a claim against the

left? His criticisms of the right in industrial society in its future are very, very few, but they mostly lean towards how the hell do you let the left get away with this kind of thing. Okay. All right. Basically. All right. Huge numbers of would-be rebels take the bait. In fighting racism, sexism, et cetera, et cetera, they are only doing the systems work for it.

In spite of this, they imagine that they are rebelling against the system. How is this possible? First, 50 years ago, the system was not yet committed to equality for black people, women, and homosexuals. So that action in favor of these causes really was a form of rebellion. Consequently, these causes came to be conveniently regarded as rebel causes. They have retained that status today simply as a matter of tradition. That is, because each rebel generation imitates to preceding generations. Yes.

Yeah. Yeah, that I think is what I was trying to have come across with the quote is exactly that. Yeah. Second, there are still significant numbers of people, as I pointed out earlier, who resist the social changes that the system requires, and some of these people, even are authority figures such as cops, judges, or politicians. These resistors provide a target for the would-be rebels, someone for them to rebel against. Commentators like Rush Limbaugh helped the process by ranting against the activists, seeing that they have made someone angry, fosters the activist's illusions

that they are rebelled. That's a really, I mean, like I said, when industrial society in its future, My favorite parts of it is when he's basically talking psychology. He has a window into it that is pretty special. Although, I mean, he's borrowed from other people, but there are some things that are, I think, M.K. Altrid's head specific. There's a way he delivers the content that is unique to him. It is distinctly not from the left. it's kind of a boomer, right?

Well, he's a boomer. He's a total boomer. He's a complete boomer. I'm glad you said it because I have thought for a long time the guy was a boomer. I've said it as a joke a lot. Boomer, ha ha, funny. But he like really has a lot of boomer tendencies. Nothing wrong with that necessarily.

But his boomer delivery is the most unique thing. Yeah. But it's actually powerful. I mean, it speaks to a gen. a general. Yeah. Yeah. No, it speaks to a whole group of people who, the, this, these group of like situationist,

leftists who like a lot of the opinions align with one another, who are, they're definitely not talking to like right, like the same kind of group that Ted is talking to. Yeah. All right. Third, in order to bring themselves into conflict, even with the majority of the system's leaders who fully accept the social changes that the system demand. the would-be rebels insist on solutions that go farther than what the system's leaders consider prudent, and they show exaggerated anger over trivial matters.

For example, they demand payment of reparations to black people, and they often become enraged at any criticism of a minority group, no matter how cautious and reasonable. In this way, the activists are able to maintain the illusion that they are rebelling against the system, but the illusion is absurd. agitation against racism, sexism, homophobia, and the like, no more constitutes rebellion against the system than does agitation against political graft and corruption. Those who work against graft and corruption are not rebelling, but acting as the systems enforcers. They are helping to keep the politicians obedient to the rules of the system. Those who work against racism, sexism, and homophobia similarly are acting as the systems enforcers.

They help the system to suppress the deviant, racist, sexist, and homophobic attitudes that cause problems for the system. Want me to keep going? Yeah, keep going. But the activists don't act only as the system's enforcers. They also serve as a kind of lightning rod that protects the system by drawing public resentment away from the system and its institutions. For example, there were several reasons why it was to the system's advantage to get women out of the home and into the workplace. 50 years ago, if the system, as represented by the government of the media, had begun out of the blue a propaganda campaign designed to make it socially acceptable for women

to center their lives on careers rather than on the home, the natural human resistance to change would have caused widespread public resentment. What actually happened was that the changes were spearheaded by radical feminists behind whom the system institutions trailed at a safe distance. The resentment of the more conservative members of society was directed primarily, against a radical feminist rather than against the system and its institutions, because the changes sponsored by the system seems slow and moderate in comparison with the more radical solutions advocated by feminists. And even these relatively slow changes were seen as having been forced on the system by pressure from the radicals.

Short sweet to the point. And then he actually, you might as well read that next portion immediately because he starts clumsily starts the paragraph, but it's just a summary of the last paragraph. Might as well. So part three is called the systems need a trick. So in a nutshell, the systems need as trick as this. One, for the sake of its own efficiency and security, the system needs to bring about a deep,

needs to bring about deep in radical social changes to match to change conditions resulting from technological process. 2. The frustration of life under the circumstances imposed by the system leads to rebellious impulses. 3. Rebellious impulses are co-opted by the system in the service of the social changes it requires. Activists rebel against the old and outmoded values that are no longer of use to the system and in favor of the new values that the system needs us to accept. four, in this way, rebellious impulses which otherwise might have been dangerous to the system are given an outlet that is not only harmless to the system, but useful to it. Five, much of the public resentment resulting from the imposition of social change is drawn away from the system and its institutions and drawn away from the system and its institutions and is directed instead at the radicals who spearheaded the change. right so this is

the systems needest trick his whole outline here there was a concept Pete from the situationists I guess like Gidea Borde a bunch French postmodernists basically

came out of the Marxist tradition they had an idea that was called recuperation which and this was probably in the 30s or 40s maybe even the 50s. And the basic summary was the system takes things that are at once rebellious,

commercializes them, and turns them into acceptable things, robbing them of their value for commercial purposes. It also happens to take any aspect of rebellion out of them. This was, I think

it was Guillaivore who came up with the idea itself in, yes, I have it here, but it's in French. So the word that he uses is recuperation. in French. I'm not going to do the pronunciation here. In English, that means total exploitation. Is the direct translation there?

So that's, this is an idea that Ted is, I'm not trying to take anything away from Ted. His summary of it is uniquely him. I think it speaks to a lot of people who aren't being spoke to by a bunch of French postmodernists who people would never think to read, but they're agreeing with Ted here, good enough. But this is an idea concept that's come up before,

I think it would be good for anybody who's interested in further development of this concept to go and look at someone like Gita B. B. B. B. B. Munez, who was on the show the other day and we were talking about it. He wrote an article. Yeah, thank you. He wrote an article called The Post-Liberitarian Moment. And he talked about, did you hear him talk about postmodernism? where he mentioned, yeah. What was your take on his take on that? He said postmodernism wasn't an ideology, it was a moment, and born out of that moment were these writers. Yeah, no, absolutely.

I think all acts of philosophy are moments. But I think all of them should be viewed that way, not just postmodernism. For instance, I think liberal. liberalism is a breakoff of medieval feudalism ultimately it's a breakoff it was a technological attempt to move away because it shifted the power away from the landowning class over to a different class the traditional aristocratic landowning class giving their power away to the boress z basically that's a moment and then so there's a reaction to it the galianism is a reaction to the french revolution it's a moment in time you can't use haigel direct from the book today anybody

you think you can lives in a universe where I guess it's very easy to believe that things are all being worked behind the scenes instead of radical explosions of chaos that dominate the world that we exist in. There's no dialectic really, but at the time, this was a technology that Hagle wanted to develop to read the situation out. So I totally agree with that idea. It is a moment in time. It's not something that one should expect could be used today, applies to whatever you goals are today. It is very specifically something that comes out of the Enlightenment, out of the reaction to the Enlightenment and happens in France in a particular context. Yeah, absolutely. Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle

Newbridge Warehouse sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favorite Liddle items, all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs. When the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Lidl Newbridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Lidl, more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive, by design. They move you, even before you drive.

The new Cooper plugin hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2,000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera, design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services, Ireland Limited, subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply.

Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. All right, let's move on then. We just went over the systems needing this trick as five points. Of course, this trick was not planned in advance by the system's leaders who are not conscious of having played a trick at all. The way it works is something like this. In deciding what positions to take on any issue, the editors, publishers, and owners of the media must consciously or unconsciously balance several factors.

They must consider how their readers or viewers will react to what they print or broadcast about the issue. They must consider how their advertisers, their peers in the media, and other powerful persons will react. And they must consider the effect on the security of the system of what they print or broadcast. Let me ask you a question. Do you think that I see the New York Times editorial board in this light? Yeah. Yes, I completely agree. I think you can disagree with the term corporate media.

No, I mean, that's why we use the term corporate media. It's very specific groups, yeah. Okay. These practical considerations will usually outweigh whatever personal feelings they may have about the issue. The personal feelings of the media leaders, their advertisers, and other powerful persons are varied. They may be liberal or conservative, religious or aesthetic. They may be liberal or conservative, religious or aesthetic. The only universal common ground among the leaders is their commitment to the system,

its security, and its power. Therefore, within the limits imposed by what the public is willing to accept, the principal factor determining the attitudes propagated, by the media is a rough consensus of opinion among the media leaders and other powerful people as to what is good for the system. Thus, when an editor or other media leader sets out to decide what attitudes to take towards a movement or cause, his first thought is whether the movement includes anything that is good or bad for the system. Maybe he tells himself that his decision is based on moral, philosophical, or religious grounds, but it is an observable fact that in practice, the security of the system

takes precedence over all other factors in determining the attitude of the media. Now, what I will say to that is, I think they're also taking into consideration who may be in charge of the system at that time and how the system is supposed to work under that person because, and I will just use a perfect example, what I think is a perfect example. In 2015, the press in this country were decidedly anti-Black Lives Matter. They had nothing good to say about them. They saw them as a thorn in the side of the system, which was run by Barack Obama at that time. But as soon as the quote-unquote Russian agent Nazi person who wanted to put gays in camps came into power and now presided over the system,

they could use Black Lives Matter to their advantage, and I believe that they did. I'm in total agreement with you, Pete. I think the thing that... What I find interesting is that Ted is willing to say that a person's decision is primarily going to be what's in service of the system. I guess he doesn't mean profit-seeking

what that means, what motivation. it is there. It's really vague. I think these news editors who run stories, write the headlines that grab the eyes, are playing to bases. They're playing to their bases.

And one base happens to be in power and also have a predominance in the news media. The left absolutely has a predominance in the news media, though Fox is the most watched mainstream show. Other than that, I mean, You know, so I think that they're, if he means they're playing to bases first, that their vision of the system is what they're playing to, like, what do you think, Pete? I don't know if I'm lost here on that.

I, if they're playing to the base, the way it seems to happen now is they're playing to the most radical side of the base, which would fit right into what Ted's talking about here. now everything is catered towards the activist. And according to Ted, that is because the system understands that it needs changing and the way that it needs changing is in not the perfect way the activist is trying to change it, but in that direction. Yeah. Yeah. I just, I think in terms of the system needing to service the social machine, that's the

terms in which I'm approaching this from. So how is it doing that by it's a simple playing to your base sort of thing. And then kind of it's all about the war for the base and how you can shape public opinion. And so it seems like the system is a second order factor to culture or public opinion than it actually is the main thing between society and the people. Sure. And you know, you can the way he's writing this, you can see a lot of this into you can read some into Yarvon's Cathedral model. Which I do, yeah, I certainly do. So, yeah, I mean, it's, I guess that's an argument that anyone can have,

that a lot of people want to have, is the press and academia in charge and pushing the government and pushing the culture which pushes the government, or is the government in charge and they're in charge of academia and they tell academia what to do and they tell what the press they tell the press what to do. I tend to lean more towards the Yarvan side of it that actually the press, press academia and at this point, and I don't think Yarvin would agree with me because he's very, he's protective of big tech. But I think big tech has a lot to do with that. and someone who's worked in, you know, worked in Silicon Valley for two decades, I'm sure, you know. All right. Let me see what we go from.

Left intelligentsia, basically. I'm much more in favor of an opinion if you try to apply Ted to this is a, if that this system is whatever ideological, would it be ethical, I don't care. Whatever ideological system, whatever idea. a liberal left intelligentsia would want constitutes an idea within the category system. If it's literally, if system quite literally equals left intelligentsia's ideal system. And it would appear... Okay, I'm in. Yeah, and it would appear that the system wants those ideas to be adopted because it somehow sees

sees that it's going to be to their advantage to keep their stranglehold. And this is, you read it from a power perspective, it's not about the accumulation of wealth or, or you see it as an influence. Yeah, I'm one of those people who I'd rather have power than wealth. Yeah, okay. Yeah. All right. For example, if a news magazine editor looks at the militia movement, he may or may not

sympathize personally with some of its grievances and goals. but he also sees that there is a strong consensus among his advertisers and his peers in the media, that the militia movement is potentially dangerous to the system and therefore should be discouraged. Under these circumstances, he knows that his magazine had better taken negative attitude towards a militia movement. The negative attitude of the media presumably is part of the reason why the militia movement has died down. Now, there was a big militia movement through the 90s, and they definitely went to war against that. When the same editor looks at radical feminism, he sees that some of its more extreme solutions would be dangerous to the system. But he also sees that feminism holds much that is useful to the system.

Women's participation in the business and technical world integrates them and their families better into the system. Their talents are of service to the system in business and technical matters. Feminist emphasis on ending domestic abuse and rape also serves a system needs since rape and abuse, like other forms of violence, are dangerous. to the system. Perhaps most important, the editor recognizes that the pettiness and meaninglessness of modern housework and the social isolation of the modern housewife can lead to serious frustration for many women, frustration that will cause problems for the system unless women are allowed an outlet through careers in the business and technical world. Even if this editor is a macho type who personally feels more comfortable with women in a

subordinate position. He knows that feminism, at least in a relatively moderate form, is good for the system. He knows that his editorial posture must be favorable towards moderate feminism. Otherwise, he will face a disapproval of his advertisers and other powerful people. This is why the mainstream media's attitude has been generally supportive of moderate feminism, mixed towards radical feminism, and consistently hostile only towards the most extreme feminist positions. So it's the advertisers who control everything, Pete. Did we narrow it down? Do we have our, do we have our Kulaks?

Well, I guess we know who goes against the wall first. I've said that at least for a decade, Pete. I've been saying that for at least one decade. A lot of our friend Bellamy, Fitzpatrick's former green anarchist, he, you catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive, by design. They move you even before you drive. The new Kupra plug-in hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon and Terramar, now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro. Search Kupra and discover our latest offers. Kupra, design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher

purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services, Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria, terms and conditions apply. Brokexwagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ready for huge savings? Well, mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite Liddle items,

all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs. When the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Lidl. More to value.

The first time I ever interviewed him, he made a big point of stressing how dangerous he thinks advertising is. Oh yeah, it's for sure. Advertising and macroeconomics are two very powerful forms of mind control that are used all the time. Through this type of process,

rebel movements that are dangerous to the system are subjected to negative propaganda, while rebel movements that are believed to be useful to the system are given cautious encouragement in the media. Unconscious absorption of media propaganda influences would-be rebels to rebel in ways that serve the interests of the system. Let me go on. The university intellectuals also play an important role in carrying out the systems need as trick.

Though they like to fancy themselves independent thinkers, the intellectuals are, allowing for individual exceptions, the most over-socialized, the most confronts. the tamest and most domesticated, the most pampered, dependent, and spineless group in America today. As a result, their impulse to rebel is particularly strong. But because they are incapable of independent thought, real rebellion is impossible for them. Consequently, they are suckers for the systems trick, which allows them to irritate people and enjoy, is it irritate people and enjoy the illusion of rebelling without ever having to challenge the same. systems basic values.

That's from a Harvard man. So easy. So easy to be a rebel these days. Well, you don't really have to speak out against it. I mean, I think that they're just going too far. You know, I mean, if it was, if it's racism, if it's, I mean, what right winger isn't going to be like, most right wingers are like, yeah, racism sucks. It should be, don't be racist.

This is stupid. But they just, they went, they went too far with the trans shit. man the trans kids the four-year-olds they're going really far in lots of directions pete you're going really far in a lot of directions actually very quickly yeah because they are the teachers of young people the university intellectuals are in a position to help the system play its trick on the young which they do by steering young people's rebellious impulses toward the standard stereotype targets. Racism, colonialism,

women's issues, etc. Young people who are not college students learn through the media or through personal contact of the social justice issues for which students rebel and they imitate the students. Thus, a youth culture develops in which there is a stereotype mode of

rebellion that spreads through imitation appears, just as hairstyle, hairstyles, clothing styles, and other fads spread through imitation. I mean, he's, I'm even going to say meme. Yeah. But I mean, really, if you understand exactly what you're saying, especially in part three, he's just laying out what Antifa is to the system.

There's a matter of, I don't know, I don't know if you've ever spoken to a college student. I've spoken to a lot of college students who are very much in this, what Ted would probably be talking about this milieu of very stereo. type rebels like your next door neighbor rebel type people and it's a lifestyle is also something that needs

to be understood is it's these days Ted couldn't have known this in 2005 and apparently we got a message that he has no TV access I don't know if you saw that no TV access he just has a CCTV that broadcasts religious stuff

and other educational stuff so he couldn't have called that then he certainly wouldn't be able to call it now, but there is, certainly the average college student is, I would use the word under attack, by, from every vector possible, into a very subtle kind of behavior. Language is mostly inculcated.

Through means like social media is doing this to them, their friends, the language they use in memes includes these kinds of, whether it be terminology, pronoun, designation of some kind. It's the transfer of obedience

via culture is subtle. It's not direct. It's advertised in a lot of ways. And I think that that's probably how people are firstly put into this category of

being okay with feeling like a rebel in the system. Is they have a lot of support in whether it be an academia call their academic system is what supports the idea of being number one a rebel but also being completely the most normal person of all time the most useful slave of all time um you catch them in the corner of your eye distinctive by design they move you even before you drive the new cooper plug-in hybrid range for mentor leon and terramar now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro.

Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ready for huge savings?

We'll mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th, because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favorite Lidl items, all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Lidl, more to value. It is the academic bubble that allows for that to be taking place.

I think that's just important to point out if you look at it. that will have the system looks. A college student really is a type of person these days. Like how you would say, like a goth is a type of person. You can probably guess what sort of music they listen to, how they dress. A college student is a type of person. Their previous identity, no matter what it was, gets washed away or at least cleansed enough that they can overlay college student on top.

and it works about 70% of the time, meaning they don't shed it off once they go back or they get their degree or it seems to work a good percentage of the time. Those people are just like stable rebels who are rebellious in the college days and then they bring their entire language. They bring their entire culture out of college into the HR department and the marketing department where they continue to perpetuate. slightly more extreme versions of that as they suffer to the peer pressure of their own children when they don't want to be nagged about the next thing that makes them behave in a certain way. So I think it's subtle. I don't even think that this, what I think is the big danger is as industrial as what Ted seems to think that it is.

Okay. Cool. Well, what you're describing when you say, you know, just like a goth is what the last episode I released was about. It's about identity. Everything's about, everything is about identity. People put on an identity. They adopted ideology.

Use it as an identity. And then anything that is, that threatens that identity. Or if you're somebody who shares that identity with them and then you say one little, you know, What's funny is when you watch leftists on Twitter that one deviates, maybe one goes turf, and now they're out of the group. They're out of the in group now. Oh, yeah. You can see that in libertarianism too.

Yeah. Yeah. You're not an anarchist anymore. There's, I think it's, it's, it's Hegel has a well-known concept of wanting to be validated for your identity. that you want to have an identity and that you want your identity to be validated. This has been tested out. It seems

that most people would rather they get validation out of their near group rather than all people across it. So for instance, a man who is poor and lives in Ghana

compares himself and his wealth to his local people and considers wealthy the people within his group who are wealthy. He doesn't go, oh, people in a different country say Sweden, those people are the people who I compare myself to economically. I don't think about wealth in terms of the way a Swede thinks about wealth. Same thing. So people are localistic when they think in terms of their social status, how they view themselves among their peer groups. I think the symptom of the West seems to be, and it has been since the Enlightenment,

has been that the emphasis on individualism, whether by consequence or on purpose, gave rise to a habitual need for identity and a validation of that identity as an individual person. It's very easy to do that in these peer groups that pop up in these kinds of because you can just create yourself within a simple mold and boom, the job is done. Now I have my own identity. I don't have a crisis happening anymore. That seems to be a huge symptom of the problem of being in the West and having this, the way we think is just all about identity. And we can't help it.

I don't know if it's right or wrong, but it's the way we've been brought up. Absolutely. All right. Part four. The trick is not perfect. Naturally, the system's trick does not work perfectly. Not all the positions adopted by the activist community. are consistent with the need to the system.

In this connection, some of the most, in this connection, some of the most important difficulties that confront the system are related to the conflict between the two different types of propaganda that the system has to use. Integration propaganda and agitation propaganda. Integration propaganda is the principal mechanism of socialization in modern society. It is propaganda that is designed to instill in people the attitudes, beliefs, values, and habits that they need to have. in order to be safe and useful tools of the system.

It teaches people to permanently repress or sublimate their emotional impulses that are dangerous to the system. ESB transformed how the country powered itself once. And now we're doing it again. Working with businesses all across Ireland, helping them reduce their energy costs, reach their sustainability goals, and future-proof their operations. Because this is not just for us. It's for future us

To find out more Contact our Smart Energy Services team at ESB.aE forward slash smart energy You catch them in the corner of your eye Distinctive by design They move you Even before you drive The new Cooper plugin hybrid range

For Mentor, Leon and Teramar Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera, design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited, subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited, trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Its focus is on long-term attitudes and deep-seated values of broad applicability rather than on attitudes towards specific

current issues. You want me to go on to agitation propaganda? Yeah, sure. Agitation propaganda plays on people's emotions so as to bring out certain attitudes or behaviors in specific current situations. Instead of teaching people to suppress dangerous emotional impulses, it seeks to stimulate certain emotions for well-defined purposes localized in time. Keep going?

Yeah, keep going. I think he's just outlining a strategy. Yep. The system needs an orderly, docile, cooperative, passive, dependent population. Above all, it requires a nonviolent population since it needs the government to have a monopoly on the use of physical force. For this reason, integration propaganda has to teach us to be horrified, frightened, and appalled by violence so that we will not be tempted to use it even when we are very angry.

By violence, I mean physical attacks on human beings. More generally, integration propaganda has to teach us soft, cuttly values that emphasize non-aggressiveness, interdependence, and cooperation. On the other hand, in certain contexts, the system itself finds it useful or necessary to result to brutal aggressive methods to achieve its own objectives. The most obvious example of such methods is warfare. In wartime, the system relies on agitation propaganda. In order to win public approval of military action, it plays on people. emotions to make them feel frightened and angry at their real or supposed enemy. In this situation, there is a conflict between integration propaganda and agitation propaganda.

Those people in whom the cuddly values and the aversion to violence have been most deeply planted can't easily be persuaded to approve a bloody military operation. Here are the systems that friars to some extent. The activists who have been rebelling all along in favor of the values of integration propaganda continue to do so during wartime. They opposed the war effort not only because it is violent, but because it is racist, colonialist, imperialist, et cetera, all of which is contrary to the soft, cuddly values taught by integration propaganda. I don't know how much that works anymore. I was going to say that what works now is the war's turned inward, obviously. And I think if you

turn the war inward, it works just fine. Yeah. I don't think the left would have any problem with calling a war against other American people racist, colonialist, imperialist. It just has to be not a racist war, not a colonialist war, not an imperialist war, a.k.a. a war against the domestic citizen of the United States. Popular liberty, Andrew says, Jesus, Pete, when you hear that line, did you just say nap? We're taught to a bore violence, he says. Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right. The systems trick also backfires where the treatment of animals is concerned. Inevitably, many people extend to

animals to soft values and the aversion to violence that they are taught with respect to humans. They are horrified by the slaughter of animals from meat and by other practices harmful to animals, such as the reduction of chickens to egg-laying machines kept in tiny cages or the use of animals and science experiments. Up to a point, the resulting opposition to mistreatment of animals may be useful to the system. Because a vegan diet is more efficient in terms of resource utilization than a carnivorous one, veganism, if widely adopted, will help to ease the burden placed on the Earth's limited resources by the growth of the human population. But activists insistence on ending of the use of animals and scientific experiments is squarely in conflict with the system's needs,

since for this foreseeable future, there is not likely to be any workable substitute for living animals as research subjects. All the same, the fact that the system's trick does backfire here, and there does not prevent it from being, on the whole, a remarkably effective device for turning rebellious impulses to the system's advantage. It has to be conceded that the trick described here is not only, is not the only factor determining the direction the rebellious impulse has taken our society. Many people today feel weak and powerless, for the very good reason that the system really does make us weak and powerless, and therefore identify obsessively with victims, with the weak and the oppressed. That's part of the reason why victimization issues such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and neo-colonialism

have become standard activist issues. I even see some libertarianism in there. Oh, yeah, without a doubt. Anywhere where the activism can be played, right? Oh, well, actually, he gives the example. Yeah, he says the, um, the, and therefore identify obsessively with victims with the weak and the oppressed. I mean, I was just having another argument in DMs today

with somebody who made the claim that government is equal slavery. And I presented them with the 1828 Webster's Dictionary definition of slavery and said, how does this comport with what you see the government doing today? And all they said was, I proved it in my article. Oh, man. I feel like you could do one sentence, right? You could be like, well, here you go, one sentence. I mean, we don't even have, it's amazing that some of the people who are writing articles

and are getting spread widely, it's just, it's all hyperbole. And I'm guilty of it, too. You know, in the past, I try to keep that for substack now. But as far as, you know, I mean, if you seek to write an article, saying the government is slavery. I can prove that government is slick is Is it the government bad enough? Does it need to be slavery?

Isn't it bad enough? Well, how about just asking this question of that person? Maybe you want to think of yourself as a slave. Do you want to think of yourself as a slave? This is a good counter to somebody who's caught in the idea that the government has to be slavery for it to be persuadably a bad thing. Yeah. Maybe your identity is caught up in being a slave.

I don't know. Maybe that's part of your ideology. Maybe the ideology that you hold, you have to be a slave within that ideology or the ideology falls apart. Or the slave is the victim. And you have your master slave mentality and your victimhood is what drives your desire

to do this rebelling thing, which has actually been made in service of the establishment. Yeah. Comes back to its head again. All right. I think this is, yeah, this is the last part. Yeah, and by the way, not a strongly persuasive example because it's a really long example. Yeah, I know.

It's, damn, boomer. All right. Yes. Part five, an example. I have with me an anthropology textbook. in which I've noticed several nice examples of the way in which university intellectuals help the system with its trick by disguising conformity as criticism of modern society. The cutest of these examples is found on pages 132 to 136 where the author quotes

in adapted form an article by one Rhonda K. Williamson, an intersexed person, that is, a person born with both male and female physical characteristics. I'm assuming hermaphrodite? Is that what he's? I don't know. I've never heard the term intersects before. Yeah, that's what it is, or that's what they're saying it is. A person born with both male and female physical characteristics.

Yeah, I would assume that talk about Chinese value. You got a, now you're. Jesus. What do you mean? What is that me? I don't know what that means, man. Let's keep going. Ron DeK. Williamson. Williamson states that the American Indians not only accepted intersex persons, but especially valued them. She contrasts this attitude with the Euro-American attitude, which she equates with the attitude that her own appearance adopted toward her. Williamson's parents mistreated her cruelly. They held her in contempt for her intersex condition. They told her she was cursed and given over to the devil. and they took her to charismatic churches to have the demon cast that out of her. This is like just a terrible B movie.

She was even given napkins in which she was supposed to cough out the demon. But it is obviously ridiculous to equate this with the modern Euro-American attitude. It may approximate the Euro-American attitude of 150 years ago. But nowadays, almost any American educator psychologist or mainstream clergymen would be horrified at that kind of treatment of an intersex person. The media would never dream of portraying such treatment in a favorable light. Average middle class Americans today may not be as accepting of the intersex condition as the Indians were, but few would fail to recognize the cruelty of the way in which Williamson was treated.

Air Grid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the Northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area, and your input and local knowledge are vital and shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say, online or in person, so together we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.i. 4.n. Northwest. Employers, did you know, you can now reward you and your staff with up to 1,500 euro and gift cards annually, completely tax-free. And even better, You can spread it over five different occasions. Now's the perfect time to try OptionsCard.

OptionsCard is Ireland's brand new multi-choice employee gift card packed with unique features that your staff will love. It's simple to buy, easy to manage, and best of all, there are no extra fees or hidden catches. Visit OptionsCard.orghumed.com.com.com. Williamson's parents obviously were deviant, religious cooks whose attitudes and beliefs were way out of line with the values of the system.

it's amazing to me that he doesn't actually take into account that she just could be lying that's dude that's hilarious because that was the first thought I had she's just lying yeah it's like let's take it to get how about we take into consideration the bitch is making this shit up oh man that's the Machiavellian that's the whole point of reading that fucking overly sized James Burnham book is so that you can go, what if they're just fucking lying? Exactly. It's so true. It's so true.

It's such an important thing to remember is that Ted really probably takes a lot of things at face value for a neurochemical reason or something like that. You've got to wonder what that math brain is like. Oh, it's probably loud. Probably really loud. Thus, while putting on a show of criticizing modern Euro-American society, Williamson really is attacking only deviant minorities and cultural laggards. God, I love the term laggard. Got to use that one. That's a good one.

I've heard that in a long time. Yeah, yeah, it's been a while. Devant minorities and cultural laggards who have not yet adapted to the dominant values of present-day America. Havelin, the author of the book on page 12, portrays cultural anthropology as iconoclachian. as challenging the assumptions of modern Western society. This is so far contrary to the truth that it would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. The mainstream of modern American anthropology is objectively subservient to the values and assumptions of the system. When today's anthropologists pretend to challenge the values of their system,

typically they challenge only the values of the past, obsolete and outmoded values now held by no one but deviance and laggards who have not kept up the cultural changes that the system requires of us. He brings that up a lot in industrial society and its future when he talks about the left. It says the left is always concentrating on things that the 99.9% of the population has just swept under the rug and it's like, okay, we don't care anymore. And they just, they concentrate on that 0.1%. And just how, you know, I mean, it's like, well, now it's like with the white supremacists. I mean, literally, how many white supremacists do you think there are in this country?

I mean, people who would literally identify because I've met a couple, they're not like, they don't hide the fact that they're white supremacists. They're actually really proud of it and they like to talk about it. They're not hiding it. Very interesting. I also think that here, Ted is talking about the, I almost feel like he's talking about everyone else here. He's talking about the left is challenging people. The left has to challenge everyone else,

but they don't actually challenge what people believe today. They challenge what they think people believed 40 years ago or 50 years ago, that they're arguing against the base, the large group, but they're not actually arguing against them. They're arguing the idea of them, which I think, by the way, social media coming into the foreg has really permitted this to go completely out of control because now you could spend 20 hours a day arguing against a group of outmoded ideas that nobody actually believes anymore.

I mean, we see this all the time. Yeah. Yeah, it's amazing. Andrew, wow, yeah, that's so boomer to just believe it at face value. All right. Havelin's use of Williamson's article illustrates this very well, and it represents the general slant of Havelin's book. Havelin plays up ethnographic facts that teach his readers politically correct lessons,

but he understates or omits altogether ethnographic facts that are politically incorrect. Thus, while he quotes Williamson's account to emphasize the Indians' acceptance of intersex persons, he does not mention, for example, that among many of the Indian tribes, women who committed adultery had their noses cut off, whereas no such punishment was in on male adulterers, or that among the Crow Indians, a warrior who was struck by a stranger, had to kill the offender immediately, else he was irretrievably disgraced in the eyes of his tribe, nor does Havelin discussed a habitual use of torture by the Indians of the eastern United States. Of course, facts of this kind represent violence, machismo, and gender discrimination,

hence they are inconsistent with the present-day values of the system, and tend to get censored out as politically incorrect. I mean, yeah. Okay, boomer. Yeah, they're, they're inconsistent. We know this. Yes, that is, the most boomer thing about that was the detraction into like a petty squabble he probably had with somebody one time. I do that's like, well, the Indians killed one another too. So he wrote that. He was like, I'm going to fucking, we're going to write this one down. Yeah, that was a big boomer digression. But the value there, of course, is that there are things. where you can pinpoint what group is partaking in what the system needs when it is the group specifically avoiding talking about its pet projects and then talking about the bad side of whatever it has a fascination of.

Oh, yeah, there's a particular group of people here who today are a victim group who, okay, that means we can never talk about anything bad that was ever done at any point. just clearly the left is aligning itself with this view. I don't think the right seems to do this very much. Again, I think he seems to be anti-left, Pete, which is not something I knew, nor something I think a lot of people know just if they hear about Ted or see a couple of tweets about Ted or watch a documentary about him. He seems to be pretty anti-left. Like, you've done this before an Aaron, but this is new to me. Yeah, yeah.

Oh, yeah, it was, he makes it immediately known in the first 30 part. The industrial society needs futures broken up into almost versus like the Bible. Yeah, the first section of it is entirely about, hey, the left sucks, don't they? And then it's, it's just a bunch of pages of that, yeah. Well, you mean, and you also have to think that, okay, so the left is more prone to activism. and he wants activism. He wants to take down technology. He wants to take us back to the Bronze Age.

But the people who seem to be his most natural allies are all worried about protesting against stuff that doesn't make any sense to him. Right. They're all protesting against things that, you know, like he says, are just things that prop up the system. They're for the system's good where he knows that to destroy. technology destroys the system as well. Yeah, right, absolutely. Yet I don't doubt that Havelin is perfectly sincere in his belief that anthropologists challenge the assumptions of Western society. The capacity for self-deception of our university intellectuals will easily stretch that far. To conclude, I want to make clear that I'm not suggesting that it is good to cut off noses for adultery

or that any other abuse of women should be tolerated, nor would I want to see anybody scorned or rejected because they were intersexed or because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But in our society today, these matters are, at most issues of reform. The systems need as trick consists in having turned powerful rebellious impulses, which otherwise might have taken a revolutionary direction to the service of these modest reforms. Yep. I appreciated the brevity of it. It's not too long. It outlines an idea which a lot of people might not be acquainted with. And I think for the most part, he's, for the most part, if you view it the way we started this off as, if you view this as a story about something called the system, anthropomorphic or otherwise, you can easily kind of like an elastic glove just fit it over whatever you need to. And it can be applicable to the situation. So I think, I don't know, I actually liked reading this one. I thought it was solid. Yeah. And after finishing Industrial Society in its future where he like really expounds upon a lot of these ideas to have them, you know,

do just this little five-part essay, for lack of a better term, and have so many of those, recognize so many of those ideas, how he brought him over. is pretty good. And it's just so awesome to see that just that boomerism, that just how it just that boomerism that you, that you could see all throughout like industrial society in his future, how he just continues it. There's always this kind of boomer tendency. But I honestly think that his boomerism helps in his writing. Oh. Hmm. I think it's, uh, charming. I think it's definitely charming. But it helps,

it's helpful for Normies to understand. I guess, man. I guess. I mean, someone like you and I. Yeah. Someone like you and I, when we're reading the stuff that we read,

you know, for fun, which other people are just like, you're insane. I like to show, I tried to show, one time I was on an airplane and I was reading Fank Numa.

And I'm in the middle of it where half of it is parentheses and dots. And this guy, and this guy in the airplane at the window seat looks over and he goes, What's you reading? And I'm going, just like poetry. Oh, man. I remember I was like 19 and somebody was, I was going to apprentice as a carpenter and everything. And I went in for an interview and the guy who was interviewing me, I had a book with me.

And he, he's like, so what book are you reading? And I'm like, essentials of Zen Buddhism? He's like, why are you here? We're weird. We're a nerd. Like, we're making it, we're making it awkward for people. I'm sorry that I'm making your day like, turning your day into this. But yeah, this is a really good book.

So what do you, what's your takeaway from this? What do you think? Well, what do you think Ted was on to? I mean, it's 2005, four years after 9-11, second year into Iraq, fifth year into fourth year into Afghanistan, TSA, NSA, he's seeing all of this technology being used against people and everything. But he's still trying to stay, trying to concentrate on. psychology because I think he understands that that's more, you know, that's how you break through

to people. And what do you think he was doing with this one? I think that the, the, what you should probably pick up from the essay, first of all, he gives a great outline. So right there, the, the, the outline at the start of the second part, if you wanted a summary of what we just read, that's it. I think the takeaway is this probably serves more as a framework than it does as a theory. He's more so describing

in 2005, something that was happening. If you weren't in, now you're in. So now you know what's going on. In 2021, the sketch looks very much the same because the playbook hasn't changed. it probably hasn't aged well, I would say Pete.

But if you were in 2008, you would be going, man, he was ahead of his time. And appreciating that, but being like, I wish I read this a few years ago. It seems very much like something that at the time, in the spirit of anarchist library, where we were reading this from, seems like something that is posted very much at the time and has to be read at the time, digested, and incorporated into the way that you think. but it was evident to me. It's probably evident to most of the listeners the way that this works. They've probably seen a lot of their own trends co-opted, made not rebellious in any sense.

I don't know. I think for me it would have been good if we had read this in 2006. But what is pointing to is a playbook that definitely hasn't changed since he wrote this. The playbook hasn't changed, but if they were, were going to use this. Say 2006, you're using this as a playbook. And they're like, we're going to keep this.

This is going to be our playbook going forward. They've gone completely off the rails with it. I mean, they just have torn it up and, or they haven't even torn it up. They've decided to turn what he laid out here into a parody. Because they've gone so far beyond what he lays out, which was a reality. in the early 2000s and could be seen as a reality. I mean, now it's just a parody of anything that he's talking about here because, like I said, the only thing is they've just gone too far.

Well, here's the deal. There's also the element of George Soros inserting culture creators and political candidates into our government and making them more left and more extreme than the previous guy that was there. So Ted probably, I don't know if Ted was in on the, the fact that there are outside influences trying to accelerate things to a greater, and I don't use accelerate in the cool way,

accelerate things into a very uncool. Air grid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid is powering up the northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area, and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say online or in person.

So together we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.i. 4.Northwest. Employers, did you know, you can now reward you and your staff with up to 1,500 euro and gift cards annually, completely tax-free. And even better, you can spread it over five different occasions. Now is the perfect time to try OptionsCard. OptionsCard is Ireland's brand new multi-choice employee gift card packed with unique features that your staff will love.

It's simple to buy, easy to manage, and best of all, there are no extra fees or hidden catches. Visit OptionsCard.i.e. today. A chaotic state of, like, global leftism. I don't think Ted could have known this in 2005, but this is not the only thing going on. Okay, the sketch is the sketch. It is not a metaphysics.

It is not the way everything inside of it works. It's a contained feel. It's basically a game. It's a sport. There's other sports going on too, like candidates being selected, placed in, disinformation agents being put throughout the news media. There's a lot of things going on. That's the other thing that needs to be mentioned.

He did not pick up on. What's funny is Matt here just put a comment in. This is exactly what I was going to bring up. I was going to bring up like the World Economic Forum. I mean, I'm pretty sure that the majority of people don't know who the World Economic Forum is and know what they started laying out the first week of June of last year. But, you know, their plans for the future in, I mean, they had plans for the future. They've had it all along. But when they started saying, okay, because of.

are the way people are reacting to this COVID-19 thing, we can take this further. You know, you've basically given us, you have a piece street. We've been looking at this piece street issue of how people have reacted. Right. And oh, okay, cool. We can run with this now. And yeah, I mean, there's, when you start taking into consideration things like the World Economic Forum, this essay kind of falls apart. You can only use this essay right now for certain things. I think you can use it for Antifa. I think you can use it for even Patriot Prayer or the, those groups that are on the ground. Who are the other ones? The proud boys. Jesus Christ. It's just a bunch of dorks. That's probably, I mean, that's practically a department of the government. Yeah, it's pretty much. Well,

even if it wasn't, even if it wasn't, it would still be a department of the government because it would be doing the government's bidding at this point. Ah, yes, I see. There you go. You just used Ted. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Of course.

What was it? Popular Liberty says J.P. Morgan logos on LGBT pride parade character is a character of the left. Oh, sure. Yeah. I mean, the big banks having the pride flag. There are police pride cars. Really funny in New York.

And Blackside Mountain here. saying so many feds. And that is a product of the internet. I mean, you can basically people say shit on the internet that gets them in trouble. They get a call from the feds. And now they're so scared, they're like, okay, I'll do anything you want. Or they go out and they protest and they, you know, I mean, who's going to trust any of these people who get arrested for January 6th if they get out of jail like early? Oh, yeah. No, yeah. And let's be clear about the language, too. Feds doesn't, feds basically means people I don't like.

Like for me, feds means people I don't like. It means anybody who I go, I express this opinion, and you're going to try to take my livelihood away, or you're going to try and put me in jail. That's a Fed. And there's millions of those, millions. Yeah. Pete, there's millions of fed.

Yeah. And there are, and there are some feds. actual feds. Fed informants. Right. Happy did well. Well, see, to me, I'm pretty well convinced that I've,

I'm pretty well convinced that I've had three or four feds on my show. I'm right here, buddy. Why don't you? Timeline Earth has four co-hosts. My friend, what are you trying to say? Well,

I'm only convinced that one is a Fed. And he and I just finished a series on Uncle Tense. We're going to see it one day. Aaron is going to, I'm the Fed. And we're all going to be like, yeah, fuck. How did we not pin that one down? Have you met him yet?

In person? Yeah. No. Okay, yeah. So I met him. Yeah, so I met him in person. No, I met Carr. Yeah, he's a, I haven't met Carr in person.

So, but yeah, Aaron turns into a teddy bear when you meet him in person, you know. I don't, yeah, I don't like that. That creeps me out even more. I don't like it. You've asked me, you've asked me if I was a Fed before. No, well, well, you already know the answer to that one. Remember the time I handed you in my wallet? I do.

I think you were a little drunk. I don't remember what the deal was, but you handed me your whole wallet, and then you showed me your ID, your whole name. I knew, but I think I knew probably before almost anyone else. You did. You knew before anyone else what my first name was. Oh, really? Okay.

Yeah, yeah. Okay. Oh, God. I forgot what I was getting to there. John is right. If you want to see Pete Go Teddy Bear put a charismatic dog in front of him. Oh, this is true. I have seen you interact with dogs on the street.

His dog rampage just turns me into a teddy bear. Hell yeah. That's awesome. You were saying you were digressing. You said you wanted to ask me. Oh, yes. How does it feel to be dominating my timeline for three weeks, four weeks? straight? How does that feel?

Genuinely. What do you mean? You're all over it. That subjects of conversation that you have started is there's wars going on over this, this stuff. How does this feel just from on a personal level? I've gotten to the, remember when I used, remember what I used to put out stuff just to start shit? Yes, dude. The reason why I'm asking this question is because unlike many other people, I, I, we were hanging out in a bar in Manhattan when you had started a podcast, maybe three months beforehand. And nobody knew who you were. And certainly nobody would start coming up with names. The Quinonians has my absolute favorite thing I've ever seen. You have a fan-based name made by your enemies, the quinonians, uh, is what they call your, your fans.

It's legendary stuff. The reason this hat exists is because one of my enemies drew it as a pejorative. And then Top Lobster jumped in and was like, hold on, wait a minute. A legend, by the way, Top Lobster, a true legend. He's one of the greatest people you will ever meet. A stud, for sure. I can't wait to meet. I hope he comes to Childerberg.

I hope everybody comes to Childerberg. This has to be the year we all got to come out. Well, here's what I hope. I hope that what is being discussed and what is being argued, I hope it's important. And how does it feel? How does it feel first before? What do you hope? Well, I mean, how does it feel?

It's, you know, I'm not someone who likes to be hated, not particularly. You know, so it's like, you know, I mean, it was like I was talking when I was talking with L.D. I was saying, you know, it's like, I mean, I was one of the most loved people out there. You know, he's like, yeah, you were the ANCAP guy and everything like that. You know, you're like the king of the ANCAPs and everything like that. And now you're like this apostate, you know, who's, you know, just asking these questions. It shouldn't be asked. And, you know, Stefan Kinsella texts me today and it's like a frigging essay. You know, it's like, it's like, it's like, it's like, it's like, it's like, it's like, it's like, it's. Man. A privilege and a nightmare at the same time. But, I mean, it's, look, how does it feel? It feels good because I think that it's causing discussions to be had that weren't had before. Yeah, for sure. It was a way to penetrate the dialogue about a transcendental principle, NAP, that being that, more or less,

it was a way to get into that and go, hey, why do we? accept this transcendental principle. You know, me, I was like in the background I was trying to go out, trying to go out, hey, what a transcendental principle? Hey, what else can we consider? I was trying to do stuff in the background based off of that, but it was certainly the most I remember when we got in with postmodernism.

There was a period of time when everyone in this community was very curious about postmodernism and we, I think, first of all, I think we were at the forefront of it. I mean, Thaddeus Russell was obviously at the forefront of doing it generally, but there was a wave. There's a wave that happened. And we got

in there and that was interesting and that was kind of like a people are talking about postmodernism and now it's kind of like you Pete are talking about this subject it's really it's been weird it's also been weird again that people call you a Nazi um and other weird things because again i i met you and nobody knew who you were and it's just weird to see in a very short period of time the people who have never met you are like oh oh oh the words guy ever and this guy it's like you they blame you for things that happened four years before you you like popped up into like the primary spot it's just it's weird and i'm just like someone who likes to get drunk and sit at the end of the table and like eat meatballs and sausage and um we were at

we were at a house party and i believe what we did the entire three hours of the occasion was sit at the end of a buffet table and crap the rib tray. It was really introverted. It was like a, we were like college students. Yeah, yeah. People walk by, hey Pete. Hey, how you doing?

That was it. Nicholasby walks by, hey, Pete. I'm like, hey, how you don't? Hey. Nice jacket. It was great. Nice jacket. Did we say nice jacket to him?

Oh, no. I feel like when it got, when it got dark. Airgrid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the Northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say, online or in person. So together we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.i.4 slash Northwest.

Employers, did you know you can now reward you and your staff with up to 1500 euro and gift cards annually completely tax-free. And even better, you can spread it over five different occasions. Now's the perfect time to try Options Card. Options Card is Ireland's brand new multi-choice employee gift card packed with unique features that your staff will love. It's simple to buy, easy to manage, and best of all, there are no extra fees or hidden catches.

Visit OptionsCart.organt. Today. I forget it. It was either me or you. Somebody said, do you think he's worn that one before? Yeah, that was me. Yeah,

that was that. Yeah, yeah. That was me. Oh, man. All right, well, let's get out of here. We're over an hour and a half. So thanks for coming back on.

And next time, maybe we'll talk about somebody whose name actually got mentioned tonight. Maybe we'll do that. Maybe we will do that. Oh, you want to give plugs about what you do and all that? TLE, Timeline Earth podcast.

That is Pete's favorite cryptozoology and comedy podcast, by the way. That's Pete's favorite. So check it out. I've never missed an episode. Dude, it's great. legendary. You can find it on any podcast place. You can find me at T-L-E-Birdarchist.

You don't have to follow me. I don't care about that. Just listen to the podcast. Go follow Carr. Don't do that. Go follow Aaron. Yeah, if you can find what his account is. We have one co-host who's locked.

We have one co-host me who's stalled at just under 6,000 followers for months now, months. And then we have asked. who can't keep an account for more in two weeks. And he's had this one for a... He really tries to get banned every time. Oh, I retweet him trying to get him banned. All right, brother. Take care.

Thanks for having me. I like to fuck off the derogatory terms on purpose, because that triggers them even more. So, like, I'll call Italian spicks and stuff like that. Just the, they think I'm dumb. Whatever.

Why don't you go back to Costa Mexico, you fucking Wop? Whatever. I was like, I was like eight years old when I found out that Wop met without papers. Ah. Yeah. Thank you. I like that. I'm in Israel that.

Well, you know what's funny is Uncle Ted wouldn't like any of these any of this language because he's just your typical boomer. You know, so he's like, uh, Uncle Ted was not PC. No, but you know.

He was neither PC or anti-PC. He was like, go up. Yeah. The guy had an IQ of 167. Yeah, slantedly so in mathematics. Like,

Oh, yeah. That would drive anyone nuts. That'd be like if you or I walked around the world, but we were perpetually stuck in fourth grade, but we had an adult brain, but everyone else was still nine, you know? Isn't that the way it is right now? You start to feel like that anyway. Uncle Ted's got like 20 points on me. I still probably got 20 points on others.

I can't imagine having it. I can't imagine being that. guy. I mean, Normy conversations now are just, I, I just,

I mean, it's like, come on. I'll tell you something before we get going. Yeah, just a quick, like a reverse culture shock thing.

So in Japan, I don't have, well, first of all, they don't ban it. They're just quiet on trains and stuff, but like,

in a cafe or something, they'll be talking to each other, but at a volume where you'd have to try listen, if you wanted to listen, and because it's in a second language, I have to care to hear it, right? But in America, people are just loud everywhere, and it's

English, so I just I have to know what they're saying, there's no avoiding it, you know? And the gap, man, it's like the stuff people in America talk about were just so vaffed and stupid, like

choroscopes and just you know, the dumbest shit. I'm like, how long can somebody talk about TV and movies or whatever? Like, what else? There's no, like, real discussion about anything. And I just felt trapped,

man. I couldn't get out of there quick enough. Since being in the airport, hearing idiots talk to each other, it's totally crazy. Yeah. You know, I go out to at least, a restaurant at least once a week here. and it's, yeah, loud,

and people are really proud of the fact of what they're talking about. Even if it, I mean, if you're talking about family. Do you ever hear them repeat the news like it's the right idea? Yeah, yeah. I'll tell you what I think. This thing I heard 10 minutes ago. Well, if they're talking about family, that's 100%, you know, probably the most important thing on the planet.

But when they start getting it, I mean, I mean, okay, I can sit and talk about sports. Airgrid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area, and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say, online or in person. So together, we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity. supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.a.e. 4. Northwest.

On the many nights of Christmas, the Guinness Storehouse brings to thee Christmas nights at gravity. This Christmas, enjoy a truly unique night out at the Gravity Bar. Savour festive bites from Big Fan Bell, expertly crafted seasonal cocktails and dance the night away with DJs from love tempo. Brett take infuse, amazing atmosphere, incredible food and drink. My goodness. It's Christmas at the Guinness Storehouse. Book now at giddlestorhouse.com. Get the facts be drinkaware, visit drinkaware.com. But I just don't do it because it's just we're so far beyond that at this point.

If people still want, I mean, I still have friends and people that I respect who watch sports as a, you know, as an outlet of something or just as tradition. You know, I live in a freaking college town with a freaking SEC football, you know, and so it's. I know. I know how it is. But you're not going to get a heated, like, standing up, pointing fingers at each other over it. Like, we're at the brink of nuclear war. I don't give the shit who won the sports ball game anymore. Like, I don't know.

So, but, you know, it is, you know, when you, now let's bring this all the way to our uncle. I mean, this is exactly what he was writing. This is exactly what he was writing about. Yeah. I mean, that's why people watch my show, say anti-garbage. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, that's why. I mean, like, look at the Ukraine coverage.

There's, like, maybe 20 of us given accurate news. Yeah. You know, like that. Yeah. I mean, you can't even, even people that I, that I pretty much agree with on a lot of things. Like, you know, like, friggin' hoppians, hoppians with Ukraine flags in there. I mean, I really don't. want to get into Ukraine because the

ideas I have for what's going actually going on there are get us taken down off a lot of platforms but yeah it's just oh yeah so how much to have to self-censor what oh I mean this isn't gonna go this isn't going to go on YouTube

I mean you know I was like I was just anything I'd say not even hi I'm Ryan Dawson like I wouldn't even put that on anywhere you want to keep well the thing is that, you know, if we're going to talk about Ukraine, it's going to be everything is going, you're going to be ringing that bell every five seconds.

So. Yeah, I know. It's just like a fire alarm. Yeah. I mean, that's my, I don't know if you've seen my sub-sax about it, but right early on, I was like, let's name them all, here's all the governors, here's the prime minister, here's the president. Here's all the guys. They're all Jews. Like, just, that's why there. It's not an American interest. Just like Iraq. This is not in our national interest. This is in their interest. Well, I mean, you know, it has more

resources than Palestine does, so maybe, just maybe. Well, they have a huge human trafficking ring there for three decades. Yeah, but yeah, I know. You know, and you feel bad.

It's hilarious because I was watching the Duran, and they're very accurate on just like, this is, this is happening on the battlefield and this is this happening. But somebody with some guesses on there, like, but why? Why are we so anti-Russia and pro-Ukraine? Like, what do we get out of it? Oh, like, Wei, what did Putin do to piss them off?

I wonder, what did he actually do? Not get accused of. Who did he actually jailed and throw out of the country? Was it Eskimos? No. Presbyterians? No. There's even a lot of people

questioning that, whether Putin is being controlled by the tribe as well. I know. That's the Adam Green retards and stuff. Like, oh, yeah, he's controlled by the tribe. That's why he helped build a nuclear program in Iran, defended Syria, and the rest of Jewish billionaires in prison because he's so Zogged. They're like, yeah, but he's got a picture with

Habbat. Like, so? There's a picture of Obama and Gaddafi, too, how that go. A picture of Rumfeld and Saddam, too, how that go. Yeah, those, that one, what was it from Tito's funeral? Where you have Saddam and Rumsfeld are just like walking down the street, just talking, having a conversation, and they've scrubbed that from the internet and that video. Oh, yeah.

That's before Rummy was the head of the deity, but I think Cheney was the head of the deity at that time. Yeah, it might have been Cheney. I can't remember. I can't find that video. it's been like seven years since I was doing all my Yugoslavia research. That one where, the real famous one where Rumsfeld's shaking his hand, you can see Farland in the back left.

It wasn't just Rami. I mean, they're all, it's been this way since they killed Kennedy. But like that's such a big pill to swallow for people who haven't been initiated that you can't like start off with that. You say something like that? They just roll their eyes. Like, well, okay.

Or, you know, the rampant, how I think it was, Jeremy R. Hammond, I think, said, he said that you don't even really need, like, APEC doesn't even need to exist in this country because of Christian, because of Protestant Christianity and their obsession, their Christian Zionism. Thank you, thanks to Samuel Intermeier, Ding, publishing, helping to publish a scope. field Bible. Isn't that Bell one of the best concepts I ever did? Yeah, that's so good. Like, he can't clip me

say you in Jew and you can't prove the bell to Jew. I'm like, whoa, hey, I didn't notice that pattern. You did. I was just saying it's a merchant bell. What are you talking about? Cool. It's like the guy that goes up to someone, he says, what's your least favorite race?

And the woman's like, are we talking about people colored very scared? He goes, I can't believe you took it in that direction. I was saying like faucet marathon or race. Oh, man. So this is not to be a political revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments, but the economic and technological basis of the present society.

Yeah, that's an opening paragraph. He's right. Because you can't fiddle a front. You can't fiddle fuck around with the types of government or whatever top down because you can't change that until you change the base anyway. But yeah, he think, and it's really, he's a child prodigy, right? And so they're like, oh, how can we use this genius math kid for ourselves? Never asked him what he wanted to do or personal autonomy.

Just like, oh, we have an opportunity here. This kid's really good at math. Let's use them for the system. It's disgusting. I'm kind of in that situation. My middle child is like super smart math, and I'm like, just let them have a very easy A and all those math classes.

They want to advance them and all that. I'm like, why? You can do all the computers anyway. It's chill. Yeah, they just look, everything is a resource. I mean, there's a reason why HR, why it's called HR Human Resources. There's everything.

They're looking for humans to resource, and once they get them, they use them up and throw them away. They can't sustain this technological system without having all these people specializing in different disciplines, and they don't stop and ask or reflect on how this has affected us on macro level, psychology, psychologically. Well, let's go ahead and we'll start it off, and we'll get in all that. So let's ask questions. So, you know, when we get to part six of the manifesto, it's called the psychology of modern leftism, do you believe that the reason why he just completely annihilate, uses the next, what, I think 31 sections to annihilate the left is because he would see them as their, his natural ally in the fight that, you know, that he's proposing. but of course because they're so caught up in stuff that's, you know, it's 2022 and I have to post on Twitter that slavery is wrong.

You know, just that. Yeah, you have to say all slavery was wrong, not just in the American South in the 1850s. Like the slaves we have in Libya, the special job labor in China, the current slavery, right? But it's not wrong. They don't really think it's wrong. They like kicking a dead horse. They love wearing the crown and doing a victory dance for the problems of yesteryear so they don't have to face what's going on now.

So he starts off. That's in Ted's writing too, a different writing than the, that's in the systems needest trick. You're just like, hooray me, I don't hate gays. They're like, well, the whole culture agrees. Yeah. I've actually read that whole thing on an episode. you know, basically show how, you know, in 2005, he's saying, here's what Antifa is going to do. This is how the system is going to use them.

This is how the system is going to use, you know, how he predicted the 2020 riots and everything. And basically everything that's happening right now is in that. He calls in, like, social justice and all that in the manifesto he wrote 35 years ago. Yeah. Yeah. But, you know, but hey, hey, hey, all this is is him copying. Al Gore's book from 1992. You know that, right?

Because because... That's a stoner. Yeah, because, you know, he picked, because Rush Limbaugh, Cherry picked a bunch of a couple lines from this and a couple lines from Al Gore's book to show how Al Gore is no different than the Unabomber. That's like everybody caught, you know, everybody's Hitler now it is. So, you know, Rush Limbaugh is to say anybody who has any environmental concerns, you know, is obviously. And I mean, we know.

Al Gore is a piece of shit. Al Gore, the thing is, he doesn't actually have environmental concerns. No, he doesn't. It's just a vehicle. Yeah. Well, I mean, clearly in that book, when you look at that book, in the first, in Al's book, the first chapter,

he says, the two great, the, the two greatest organizations that will, that can be used to fight are the American left and the American military. Air Grid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the Northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area

and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say, online or in person. So together, we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.i.4.Northwest. On the many nights of Christmas,

the Guinness Storehouse brings to thee, Christmas nights at Gravity. This Christmas, enjoy a truly unique night out at the Gravity Bar. Sour festive bites from Big Fan Bell, expertly crafted seasonal cocktails, and dance the night away with DJs from Love Tempo. Brett take infuse, amazing atmosphere, incredible food and drink.

My goodness, it's Christmas at the Guinness Storehouse. Book now at giddlestorehouse.com. Get the facts be drinkaware, visit drinkaware.com. Yeah, wow. I'm okay So okay The American military Which is the biggest polluter on the planet

Oh Yeah and American left too Yeah so it's like okay so Yeah that's exactly exactly what you know Ted was talking about Like the left's against nuclear power Why? Well it has this fancy science word in it

That's why They're so anti-science And they're always like saying they're the party of science I'm like you don't know how many genders there are right you don't know how energy works you think electric car electricity just comes from what magic or something

I don't use gas I plug it in like where's the power coming from from the wall yeah where's that come from power plant using coal yeah exactly you ever see that like the oil leaks of the of the wind from the wind farms from the friggin thing the

the friggin windmills and everything those windmills are like leaking oil everywhere. You should get, you can free to replay this as a interview I did with Carl Zeninger. He's an economist. And we just ripped on the bullshit of green energy. And then we got into thorium, like the nuclear power we ought to use. We don't because you can't build a bomb out of it. Yep, salt thorium.

Yep. So, all right. All right. So he says, and this is one of the most interesting things is when he jumps right in. and he says, you know, we have, what exactly is a leftist? We don't, it's not even clear what you can call a leftist. And he says, when we speak of leftists in this article, we have in mind mainly socialist, collectivist, political correct types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal activists, animal rights. The psychological type.

Yes. Right. Yes. Yes. you know, that Trump is going to destroy the environment when they just flew there on private planes? Yeah, it's a selective outrage of whatever this system has already approved. So it's like, oh, I get a pat on the head if I voice these opinions which have already been settled. And so they're out there, again, they're fighting the problems of yesteryear.

Like you'll never completely stamp out every vestige of racism or whatever. I have a friend like that. He's just, like, mad at neo-Nazis online. I thought, wow, you got real problems. People are mean on the Internet. Oh, my. Like, which institution, which university, which state, which corporation, which any of them are white supremacists? Yeah.

Besides the Nazis in Ukraine. No, like, none. They're all vehemently opposed to it. Like, everybody agrees on this. The Nazis are gone. And so there it is, spend all their time doing that. Like, I'm saying. the approved thing.

But Ted goes way deeper than just, oh, their virtue signaling. He really nails it. Well, he says the two psychological tendencies that underline modern leftism, we call feelings of inferiority and over-socialization. Nailed it. And I remember reading that in high school and thinking, this is what I've been trying to,

like, I knew the feelings of inferiority part. You could notice that right away, right? right with a lot of these people but you don't care about any of these marginalized groups and it's almost always on the half of another you notice that they only belong to the group that

allegedly being oppressed it's more of like they in their mind have categories of superiority and inferiority but they don't like that concept because a loser hates the idea of superior and inferior

but they still see certain groups as inferior. And so they feel like, holy, have to level all these up. It's the lesser than now type of thing. It's something I wrote the other day. I was talking about basically the war on white people and the

war on whiteness in the United States. And I said, and I can't even say it's a war on white people. I have to say it's a war on white men because so many white women are the ones leading the war. Well, it's a war on perceived superiority.

and it's not the white men walking around saying they're superior it's the perceptions of the ones that are flipping out they hate and Ted talks about this in this time period they hate whiteness

because they see it as superior they're not saying it is they think it is they don't like Christianity because that's the dominant religion and they want anything that's not normative you know they interpret any

any language at all as being against gay, minorities etc because they feel their inferior They hate rationality, they hate reason, they favor cultural relativism, they favor all the inferior positions, and these are all inferior in their own head, right? They don't like science, real science, you know, oh no, it's just what we identify, you can just whatever. They hate all that stuff.

Air Grid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid is powering up the Northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area and your input. and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say, online or in person. So together we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.orgate.4.Northwest. On the many nights of Christmas, the Guinness Storehouse brings to thee Christmas nights at gravity.

This Christmas, enjoy a truly unique night out at the Gravity Bar. Savor festive bites from Big Fan Bell, expertly crafted seasonal cocktails, and dance the night away with DJs from Love Tempo. Brett take infuse, amazing atmosphere, incredible food and drink. My goodness, it's Christmas at the Guinness Storehouse. Book now at giddhistorehouse.com.

Get the facts be drinkaware, visit drinkaware.com. Because they feel like, and they hate capitalism, they hate anything that's considered better and normative. Talking about how they don't even aren't even upset about themselves is he says those who are most sensitive about politically incorrect terminology are not the average black ghetto dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or a disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any oppressed group but come from the privileged strata of society. It's something that my friend Zeman says, he says, the average. The average kind of person that he's talking about right here lives a more white supremacist life than the average, you know, a person who would actually call themselves a white person. It's the Martha Vineyard people. Yeah.

It's, I pointed that out back when about the pipeline that went through Native American land. Almost no Native Americans were protesting or saying anything. It was all like white liberals on there. half say not to put a pipeline there and a lot of the Indians are like no we want a pipeline that's money with which we need

no it'll tear up what the grass whatever it's always on the half of another though you'll see this too the most rapid the most avid environmentalists are live in urban centers of every modern convenience there is

but they want to tell other people how they have to live and how land should be preserved, you know, somewhere else where they don't live and boss other people around. And it's also, it's just like a do-gooder theme by which people can exercise their control freak mentality. And it's like, well, I'm doing it. I'm not doing this because I'm a control freak. I'm doing it on behalf of the environment or to fight racism or some other ill.

But it's that, no, you're not. Right. Well, it's also what he says here. Many leftists have an incense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak, women, defeated American Indians, repellent, homosexuals, and other inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They, by championing these groups, they clearly say, remember when, I guess this was 2017 or 2018, who wrote it was Salon or it might have been, Mother Jones wrote an article saying that African-Americans were more susceptible to Russian propaganda than anyone else?

Well, I mean, a better example is when they went around asking white liberal college kids about voter ID, and they thought, yeah, voter ID is racist because, you know, blacks and Hispanics don't know how to get a driver's license or have a computer. And then somebody, I can't remember who it was. went into, like, Harlem and said, if you needed to get an idea to vote, where would you go? And they're like, oh, the driver's license bureau, right? It's right down there. Yeah, I know.

I mean, obviously. People divorce from reality just think of minorities like their children, you know, perpetual children. They're so infantilizing and they look down on them. And, yeah, I hear this all the time. If people who don't think they're racist, usually are. they're like oh but I have lots of fill in the blank friends like yeah because that makes you feel good about yourself and and then I know I know people who are like yeah I mean I know that I possess racism

and those are usually the people who are just like we they're when it comes down to it they're not saying that you know they're saying they just don't want to live around certain people they're not saying I don't mean some may be saying that they're inferior or whatever but it's really just well if you if you uh no one wants to try on that a little bit if you ask a couple questions you find out it's not really a belief in genetic supremacy or anything it's just people are certain subcultures over others and they have allowed television and other things to give a prescription uh to like this is this is black culture this is this culture this is that culture and it's not it's just all hollywood garbage yeah There's no way all blacks are supposed to think like this, and they're supposed to talk like this. Like, what are you talking about? No, they don't.

That's so stupid. But every pundits, like, the black community, I'm like, really? Why, they all get together and agree on something? What are you talking about? It's like that South Park episode when Randy says, nigger on, what is it, Wheel of Fortune? And then he's like, then it's nagger or something. Yeah, Stan goes to token and says,

well, my brother, you know, my father apologized to Jesse Jackson. He's like, Jesse Jackson is not the Pope of black people. That's what he said. He is.

All right. So feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly, they are nagged by a fear that women may not be as strong and as capable as men. Obviously. Obviously.

And I feel that you could apply that to any kind of militantly anti-racist person. Like, if I went up to you out of the blue and just started, I did a video of this, I just started talking about how I have lots of friends who are left-handed and, you know, left-handed people can do whatever right-handed people can do. Like, it doesn't even need an argument. You're like, yeah, sure, of course. right like what are you doing like if I feel some

urgent need to prove that left-handed people can do whatever you know or you know from the other side that right-handed people could do and there's it's just like yeah no shit you know so why do you feel the need to do that say well

women women can be doctors or something yeah I know like okay this has been resolved a long time ago but they feel this nagging persistent itch because they don't really believe that sexes or whatever race or whatever is equal.

And so they are hell bent on trying to prove it and get everybody to swallow their dog when preach it all the time to reinforce this idea that they don't really believe. Who else would do that, right? Like, ask any minority, like, someone's like, just brings up race out of the blue. They're like, oh, God, another liberal. Yeah.

You know, because normal people don't do that, right? I've played sports with all whites, blacks, whatever. It doesn't, I don't remember that conversation ever happening, right? When you get around liberals,

it's the first thing, it's like their background program. It stinks about race all day. And I also feel like someone that's got nothing going in their life, like they're unattractive, they're physically weak, they're mentally stupid,

you know, go down the list, they have no skills, no creativity, no nothing. So what they find comfort in is a moral superiority. Because you don't have to do anything. You just have to not do stuff. It's very easy. Just, you know, don't be prejudiced, don't be this.

And they walk around like, that's their armor and their shield because they feel bad about themselves and inferior objectively on everything else. So they're like, yeah, well, at least I'm not racist. They're like, guess what? Practically, nobody is. You know, there's nothing to take a lot of pride in. There's just this picture of the leftists as just being weak and just being weak-minded, weak-willed, weak physically. Yeah, look at Antifa, they're all decrepit and fucked up.

You can just look at them and go, yeah, you're a bunch of pussies. And even Ted says, leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good, and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons the left is give for hating the West, et cetera, clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They said they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric, and so forth. But where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures,

the left find excuses for them. One of the best ones I heard was... Or begrudgingly admitted, but they're enthusiastic about it when it's the U.S. or something. Yeah, exactly. But one of my favorites on Twitter, this was a few years. ago we're posting up Marx quotes, you know, where he refers to certain people as like that Jewish nigger and stuff like that. And some Marxist goes, well, he was just a man of his time.

And I'm like, well, so was Thomas Jefferson then. Oh, I know. They always love this shit on these great figures from, you know, hundreds of years ago. And we're like, yeah, well, that person didn't like blacks or gays, whatever. oh, I'm better than them. Like, dude, if you lived back then, you would have followed everything. Like anybody now that's got,

you know, five jabs and wearing a mask and a Ukraine flag and just doing the next thing, you would have been the Nazi, you would have been the slaveholder, you would have fallen for all of it, because you're falling for it now. Jefferson was way ahead of his time. He ended the transatlantic slave trade.

He also prevented it from expanding West, and he tried to outlaw slavery in the state of Virginia when he was governor, and he only lost by a couple votes. He was trying to think of a realistic way to phase it out. And he inherited slaves. I'm not going to get a long Jefferson rant,

but the thing is, you can say that about whatever, like Socrates, great man, great philosophy, like, yeah, but he liked little boys. Einstein, brilliant, signed it. He was in love with his cousin. They didn't know him better at the time.

you can find a fault in Martin Luther King great man who's plagiarist and fooled around on his wife whatever he's like oh you just got to find something to shit on these people about to make yourself feel better about yourself no one's saying they're your Jesus or something they're just like look

this is an outstanding historical figure that changed the course of our lives for better or worse I mean Jefferson wrote the Constitution and most of the bills of rights like the guy did accomplish a lot of good he's definitely in that

positive. Like y'all, but he had slaves. Like everybody else at that time period. Yeah. And thousands of it for thousands of years. So he says modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason science, objective reality.

Well, science, unless it's, of course, you know, has to do with transgenderism or it has to be ideological. So the jab, things like that, that's when... Well, that's totally a rejection of science, because what they're saying, saying is science is not

empirical or objective. It's just a word they use to throw on their identity politics. It's the very opposite of science. Like that's not science. It's not science. It's a biology has 37 genders or 72, whatever,

up the number they're at now. It's identity. You either have a penis or vagina. It's bimodal. That's that. That's actual science. They're like, nah. The science and science has just become political nowadays and that is like the end

point of maximum cultural relativism where science doesn't mean empiricism anymore science is just like whatever you feel or whatever makes money or whatever is you know politically advantageous at the time

you're just throw the word science behind it that's ridiculous men having babies and stuff like come on that's not science Ted brings up IQ tests and he says leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. They prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack thereof. Thus, if a person is inferior, it is not his fault, but societies.

And this goes to, if you've ever read Paul Gottfrey's therapeutic, he talks about the therapeutic society, how basically, we're at the point that if somebody is, if somebody believes that Trump didn't, that if somebody believes that Trump actually won in 2020 and that there was foul play, then there's something actually wrong with that person and that person needs to be dealt with. I mean, that's why I'm, that's why I'm not on YouTube right now. Not because I covered Nazi book burnings, not because I've questioned the World War, the World War II narrative. I'm not on YouTube. YouTube right now because I question the 2020 election results.

But you could question 2016 all day every day. Sure. And that's the... We find it out, though. Steele do not see. They gave a million dollars to lie about it. You know, look, what there was some kook stuff

about the 2020 that people did the same thing with 9-11. Like, they go and debunk the kook stuff and go, see? But there's some non-cook stuff. You don't have to get into voting machines. flipping votes or any of that mess. Like the fact that all these social media

companies censored the Hunter Biden laptop story and covered for all of Biden's crimes, refused to do a debate on foreign policy. Like all that. The media was completely skewed against Trump, and that's already rigging an election. Yeah. And you can keep adding stuff,

but you don't need to. Like, you've already got a concrete slam dunk thing right there. Just stop and deal with that first before you start adding all the extra stuff. that may have happened in Arizona or whatever. Like, who cares? Like, did they or did they not sense of these stories?

They definitely did. And they were true. They were not Russian propaganda. Like, Biden lied about everything. So did Harris. They lied about the proud boys and all that. They spend more time in the debates talking about proud boys than our entire foreign policy. It was such a circus.

But anyway, yeah, you're right. Like, they're going to say there's something mentally wrong with you. you don't have the state opinion, right? You don't have, the described opinion is selection was completely fair, no cheating happened, and you're not even allowed to give an example, and there's no dialogue to tell you why you're wrong if you're wrong. It's just, nope, you are, you're wrong, and you're actually, you know, you're mentally deficient for even entertaining these ideas.

Well, not only that, you're not only mentally deficient, you're immoral. Air Grid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the Northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say, online or in person. So together we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community.

Find out more at airgrid.i.4 slash Northwest. Why does a peacock shimmer blue and green? Flamingos pink. How do creatures use color to attract, impress and survive? Discover the answers at the Wild Collidoscope at Dublin Zoo's Wild Lights, Ireland's biggest and brightest winter experience with meaning. Did you know that every wild lights visit helps save wildlife? See the wonder while supporting the wild. Wildlights tickets are selling fast.

Book your magical journey today at Dublin Zoo.I.E. I always add that one. I would add to the DNA thing. Ted is talking about why they have the position they have is based on this psychological feelings of inferiority. It may be the case or may not be the case that you can explain differences or whatever on a combination of social and genetic whatever.

But that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter even if they were right. They're only take that position because the idea that somebody is just genetically better than someone else doesn't fit their worldview and they cannot psychologically digest that as a conclusion. It doesn't mean that conclusion is true. It could be, it could not be. But they would never accept that. And that's this thing. They will not even look at it.

Like if you were going, I doubt genetic researchers could ever even. pursue figuring out whether or not that's true because it's political suicide. So even if it was true, you'd never be allowed to say it. You'd be thrown out of your university. You'd be thrown out of your university. You'd be like, no, that is not an acceptable conclusion. We've already decided without even looking at the data. Say the data might show that, yeah, it isn't.

But they don't even look at the data or even gather the data because they decided based on psychological reasons, like, no, this cannot be, we cannot allow this. that means people are better than others. Let's get into this because this starts getting into over-socialization. It says leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles and moral principle and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the over-socialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior.

so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefits to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. That's it. Yeah, that's so good. And like you can give examples like affirmative action or welfare or whatever, all these do-gooder facades.

They say, okay, when someone points out the other side, it says, well, affirmative action undermines someone's credibility because other people are going to know that said category, got a job, got an incumbent. college got whatever because they're only the best within their parameters and not versus the whole. And so when somebody, a brown woman, wheelchair, whatever, get some position, you don't know if she would have earned that anyway or if she got it because she had all the right checkboxes. And it's quite obvious that most of the time it's because they had all the right checkboxes,

which undermines it for all the ones who all are qualified. And so you can have all these different arguments against affirmative action and you can just show how long have we had it it's not working at all. Same thing with welfare, welfare hurts the poor. You can give them all the libertarian arguments to that. They don't care. They don't care if it works or not. It's like Thomas Sol said, they want

what looks good, not what works. And it just seems like, hey, give poor people money. Like, if that worked, there wouldn't be four people. It was so easy to solve poverty by just say, well, let's just give them all money. there we go we can solve the poverty

in Bangladesh just print a bunch of money and hand it to everybody there you go it doesn't work they think and they go like oh I'm for affirmative action

because if I'm not then I'm a racist like no if you're a for affirmative action you're racist because you're saying this group gets to favor over this other group

based on race that is an act of racism that doesn't matter to them They're like, no, because the group I'm shitting on is the group, you know, like whites, for example, in the United States, is the one I don't like. So then it's okay. And here's the point he makes about affirmative action here is, I think, very important. He says, leftists believe they're trying to, they're helping people, but they're not. If one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms?

obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think the divergent faction discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems served as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so, they actually harm black people. people because the activist's hostile attitude towards the white majority tends to intensify race hatred. Yep.

He nailed it. And you can see it in their hypocrisy because somebody who's completely not a racist will bring up the points I just made and more. And they're never addressed. It's always, shut up racist. Agree with me or you're a Nazi. That's their favorite one, yelling Nazi at everybody. Not sure how they're going to handle Kanye West. Airgrid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the Northwest.

We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area, and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say, online or in-person, so together we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.i.4.Northwest. Why does a peacock shimmer blue and green? Why are flamingos pink?

How do creatures use color to attract, impress, and survive? Discover the answers at the Wild Collidoscope at Dublin Zoo's Wild Lights. Ireland's biggest and brightest winter experience with meaning. Did you know that every Wild Lights visit helps save wildlife? See the wonder while supporting the wild. Wild Lights tickets are selling fast. Book your magical journey today at Dublin Zoo. I mean, they just ignore the, they ignore his skin color because skin color doesn't really

matter to them. It's that whole friend-enemy distinction. It's whoever, if you're not their friend, you're their enemy, and it doesn't matter what the skin color or anything. But the next line is one of the most important, I think, in the whole manifesto. He says, if our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to invent problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss. And I think it's so, like, kind of cute.

That transgender is right there. Yeah, I think it's so kind of cute that he uses the term making a fuss. It's just so boomer, you know? Well, you know, he was from a different error, man. Yeah. They make a fuss. But they are making a fuss about, they would just invent things to bitch about. And they have.

I mean, as homosexuality became pretty much acceptable, marriage is legal, all that, like, okay, we're just going to invent a new thing and complain about it. And that's transgender's. And I'm not comparing that to gays at all. I think gays are gay, whatever.

Transgenders is a completely made-up bullshit to say, oh, I'm a man, and you're not. And you can't just change biology, biology based on wishing or whatever. It doesn't work like that. but it's ingrained they need that sense of that power process and so this is their vehicle and they're too they're too pussyfied or whatever to just come out directly with it so it's always

on behalf of another and it's usually for the environment or for some lesser-than-dow group and they're not really lesser than now but you know from their point of view they are that are just exercising control over other people. They'll do that with their language policing and pronoun policing and all that. It's funny. I don't really like this guy for a lot of things,

but Steve Crowder did this. He dressed up like a leftist and was just riding around the car with him. These people, he's a university student, so it's like the worst of the worst, but they could not have a conversation because all of them were language policing each other so much that

you couldn't even talk. I'm offended by this one. You just said blah. I don't think that's good for so-and-so. None of these groups are even in the car. It was amazing. Like, they could barely talk to each other.

There was the one with that one in the speech that she had, you know, the whole Mark Anthony thing, friends, Romans country, whatever. Now it's like you would have to go through a list of, you know, 80 different categories to address the audience before he can start on your speech. And somebody, I think it was in Austria or something, he went in and said,

excuse me, ladies, gentlemen, this, this, this, this, this. And like, he ran out of time. But he's like, I haven't even finished my introduction. But that was the point. Like, what are we doing with all these categories? Level 11 troll for sure. Well, here we go. Okay.

So psychologists use the term socialization to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel, and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates someone at some time or other, whether he thinks it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel, and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term overssocialized, over-socialized, to describe such people. And those are the people that will ascribe moral motivations for things.

They just want to do anyway or don't want to do anyway. So like, oh, I don't know, vegetarians, they don't eat meat because they don't like how it tastes, but they just make it, oh, well, it's because I care about animals and blah, blah, blah. I could say, I don't use cosmetic products because I'm a guy, but I could say, well, I just don't like animal testing in shampoo and rabbit's eyeballs. And I was, that's not why, because I just don't like them. A lot of people will adopt some sort of behavior, whatever, where they're abstain from a certain. thing. The best are the people like I don't eat and eat except for chicken and fish. I'm like, oh, because it does taste

good, right? You know, it's like, you can't, what's the sympathy for the none for the chicken and the turkey, but you don't like the way pig and cow taste, so you don't eat it, but you're acting like, oh, you have sympathy for these cows? No, you don't. You know, it's a way, it's like,

oh, it's a way of relieving guilt from something else. Right? Well, I'm doing this. And a lot of it, and they leftists, they eat each other. Because like a lot of hardcore leftists are white women. And they are very susceptible to this over-socialization part too. But they feel a collective sense of guilt, because leftists are collectivists, of things that countries did that they ascribe to race.

So whites killed the Indians, whites enslaved the Africans, white. None of that is a product of whiteness. There's nothing in a white baby's DNA that says, I'm going to grow up and own some slaves. They're just a product of power. That's what countries did. And, you know, obviously, like, they weren't all the same. It wasn't the Irish is saving everybody.

It wasn't the Polish that killed the Indians. It's just power, and it happens, whatever. But they don't look at what states do as agencies of decision makers and businesses or any of that. They see it as a racial thing. They're like, oh, yeah, well, they're all this color. So that must be why they did it. And so they walk around these stupid collective ideas and they feel guilty about it

and a way of trying to shed the guilt is by adopting all these other moral precepts. And it's all disingenuous. And that's where it's like this is a mental thing. Because you can see it's which is borne out by all the hypocrisy and are looping all over it. Yeah. Well, he even says here that we argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is over-socialized. and that their over-socialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the over-socialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class.

Notice that university intellectuals constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment. The leftist of the over-socialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. but usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are not in conflict with the accepted morality. Exactly. Yeah. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses

mainstream society of violating that principle. And examples he uses are racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, non-violence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. While they've even lost the peace one, because that's not the established system thing anymore, and that's not the leftist position anymore. Like when the state says go to war, and that becomes normative, then they all, yay, let's go to nuclear war. I mean, they're ready, they're ready to invade Libya, and they're ready to attack Syria. They're ready to do whatever the television says. if it told them peace

then they would leave in peace they have no agency it's just they don't they're not strong enough to fight the system and you can see this this has happened all the way like music comedy all the way down through the entire strata

where they are just reinforcing the system's desires but they will not challenge any of the current problems right like if oh say here's a good example you're not you're against racism great

and so they'll spend all this time bashing, you know, 17th century slavery or something, but not Zionism, right? Because Jewish supremacy, that type of racism, has consequences. If you fight against that, you'll get canceled. You can lose your job. You can get kicked out of university because you're going to get labeled anti-Semitic,

which is ridiculous. But so if you defend Palestinians, if you, you know, point out any Zionist crimes, ownership of this or that or whatever you're going to have to face consequences you don't see a lot of professors challenging that one they're going to go right along with it

and the only time you will see any criticism of Israel is only the Palestine conflict nothing with Iraq's theory or any of the rest of it and that's just competing victim groups like well that's the anti-colonialism

part of it or whatever or the fact that they see Or the fact that they created communism and they basically, you know, every transgenderism is being one of the biggest families on the planet pushing transgenderism or the Pritzkers in Illinois. Dang. Would you see what I'm saying? I was like, if you're so anti-racist, why is it only white racism one you're fighting? Jewish racism is okay, right? Every other form of racism is okay.

It's only the one that you don't like. Because that's the group you don't like, because you identify it in the superior category. Airgrid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area, and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say, online or in-person. So together, we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community.

at more at airgrid. i.e. forward slash northwest. This Black Friday, game, stream and go full speed with one gig, sky broadband. And watch unmissable shows like all her fault on Sky. These nice people, killing you, John. And Ballad of a Small Player starring

Colin Farrell on Netflix. I've made some mistakes. Right, who hasn't? Get one gig Sky Broadband, Essential TV and Netflix, all for just 44 euro a month for 12 months. Our lowest ever price. Availability subject to location, new customers only, 12 month minimum terms, pricing thereafter, TV and broadband sold separately.

Terms apply for more info as he's got out of e-slash-beads. In your head, not mine, not yours. But that's how they see it. So they're like, oh, we hate that. And I'm like, I agree. Like, yes, you shouldn't. White should not be racist to minorities. But I just don't think they are.

I think they're the least racist group there is. I mean, whites are like hyperly anti-racist and afraid to even be thought of as racist. I don't see that with every other group. I think the majority of anybody is not racist. but like when there are, it's usually the other direction. It's against whites, against men, against, you know, Persians, Arabs, Jews, whatever, Asians, like, they all hate each other.

But White's not being, white's jumping right into anti-racism is the same basically like MK Ultra kind of stuff of being, you know, we have, we can't be anti-Semitic. I mean, anti-Semitism is the worst possible thing you can be. I mean, there is something, you need, if you, if you, you're anti-somatic, you need to be taken out, basically. I mean, any, that's... Oh, yeah, you're not a human being if you're a racist. That's like worse than being a rapist.

Because, like, even if you rape somebody, you'd probably still work in Hollywood or Wall Street. But if you said... Or you could murder people. Like, you have a policy that just flattened the country and still get reelected. But if you said the N-word, you are gone.

Like, that is a disemoral kind of, or the K-word or whatever. You know, racial epiphyst, Ralph Nader pointed this out It's like, how, how are you getting more been out of shape for some racial or sexual epithet and not actual ethnic cleansing

and murder and genocides, starvation and sanctions like real crimes against humanity? Nah, that doesn't hurt my feels. Because like Uncle Ted said, that doesn't give you a vehicle to exercise your power processing, be a control freak. If you're really concerned about justice, why don't you

fight against home demolitions in Palestine or the starvation of kids in Yemen. Because that's not fashionable. You know, I'm only, they'll rah-rah Ukraine because it's fashionable. It's on Twitter. It's what it's

bare, you know, the limning effect. But it lets them say to each other, look, I'm being obedient. I'm saying the thing I'm supposed to say. They will never challenge this system. The system's pro-Ukraine right now. So they're going to be pro-Ukraine. But they will do whatever the system's doing,

irrespective whether it's right or not. and it's usually not right. And it's like lack of agency because their psychological need is greater than their ability to reason and definitely greater than any principles. They usually don't have any.

Yeah, it's a perfect example is like, you know, the Holocaust narrative. Anyone who questions it is there's something, I mean, they're, what is it? 17 countries in Europe, you get thrown in jail for doing it. It's like, no one asks why.

And I asked someone on Twitter, yeah, and I asked someone on Twitter the other day, I said, have you ever asked yourself why you get so emotional over an event that you weren't even alive for? Well, it's like saying, I think it was $5 million instead of $6 or whatever. You're, you know, you'll go to prison. I mean, just, I don't want to get in trouble. Yeah. I got ready to say something. I'll, hell, I'll say it.

Six billion is not a historical figure anyway. That's from Steven Spielberg. That's not from Roll Hillberg or Lipsstadt or anybody else. Like, Orthodox Holocaust history has never said six million. That's straight out of Hollywood. And it doesn't mean it didn't happen or anything like that. Like, there was a Holocaust. I'm not saying that.

To say that number is just pulled out of TV. And that's with a lot of historical events. A lot of things in history are hijacked by Hollywood. happens all the time, but they can get corrected, whereas this one cannot, because it's like, no, you, no exaggeration. In my house, stupid, you know, saying Germans made furniture out of body parts and just ridiculous stuff like that, soap and lance, that's all bull. But you can't say no.

Well, I think that makes there more doubt about the Holocaust rather than less, because if you're going to accept every idiotic exaggeration, people who come and sense and they go, well, I might not be allowed to say it, but I don't think so. And that makes the slippery slope. And then they start doubting the rest of it that they might not ought to doubt, right?

And that happens with like global warming too. When you have these morons saying, the earth is gone in 12 years, no, no it isn't. And that doesn't mean the earth's not warming, but you've made these really wild exaggerations that no one's allowed to question or there are science denier,

and no, no, no. that. And so it starts sliding to become more and more ridiculous, whether it's the Holocaust or global warming or gender stuff or whatever, because you are politically not allowed to fight back. It's all, all the exaggerations are one direction. And that just helps the opposite side. Like, let's say, like a Holocaust denier or something, they can point to all these ridiculous claims. you know, like you've already electric floors and stupid stuff and go, okay, they did

not have poison fang German shepherds because they didn't. And it helps them make a case, and the fact that it censored makes it seem like, see, see, you'll go to jail if you question it. That's because it ain't true and that's why you can't question it. You're helping

them out. What you ought to do is just allow open dialogue, quit throwing people in jail for historical opinions. like it's not on shaking ground. You have the core report and Himmler's orders and all these things. You show what was going on.

Just let it, you know, let them talk and give them the counterpoints. They don't, because I think they don't have those counterpoints. But like, don't worry. Other people do. Just let it go. And that should be with all the stuff, but you can't. And that's with like, you can't discuss IQ stuff either.

Why not? well because that's not allowable you know one of the um sides of that argument is is detestable or whatever so like you don't get the top man okay that doesn't help your position

right the censorship just creates favors and casts doubt on the whole thing because everybody knows well if you're only allowed to have one conclusion then how much faith can I have in this conclusion it's the only one that's allowed to speak so it has no credibility at all

when that's what they're doing. Every time they censor stuff or force people shut up about a historical event, scientific concept, whatever it is, they undermine their own credibility by being militantly. Like, me, eh, yeah. And like you say, why are you so emotional about the Holocaust? Like, why can't you just have an adult discussion about it?

Can't do it. And it's weird because, like, well, we could discuss how many people died in the Battle of Fredericksburg or something and come up with different numbers. no one say no one died in the battle or anything but like you can't do that with uh trblinka or something or alshuess you can't you're not allowed to do it like because they have this emotional reaction like you're going to say zero like i have never met revisions in my life that said zero right the giant invasion they can't even name the camps the people that have this really strong

opinion about the holocaust know absolutely nothing about it And that tends to be with a lot of political subjects. The people that love Lincoln or something don't know anything about Lincoln, don't know anything about the Civil War, but they have a really passionate opinion about it. They've never read a single book about it. They don't know Jack. But they're like, yes, but the narrative is he got rid of slavery.

And I'm really against slavery because slavery is racist. And it's psychological. You were talking about what Hollywood creates and everything. Yeah, like the thing that Steven Spielberg left out of the movie that Amon got, you know, who was Ray Fine's character, he was dismissed from the SS in charge with maltreatment, a legal punishment of prisoners and failure to provide adequate food for them. That didn't make it into the movie, did it? No, a lot of things don't make it in the movie.

Spielberg's part of these the mega donor group for Jeffrey Epstein so you know he's just that guy whatever and it

I think it psychologically horrifies Jews too because the more you exaggerate like I don't know why you have to exaggerate

the Holocaust it was bad enough you don't need to add all this extra ridiculous crap to it but the more you know demonic they have

like they made pelvis bone ashtrays and this you know it makes like this sense of resentment this never again and this almost neurotic behavior like oh it's coming the next show is right around the corner

and it isn't but that's only good come of self-fulfilling prophecy you lash out at all your neighbors over nothing all the time then you bring about what you're trying to avoid and it's also disgusting lie to about Germans They didn't do these things. They did plenty of horrible things.

So did the Allies. I mean, they nuke two cities. Okay? Like, they also starved people. They also shot civilians. They also tortured people. They did. Everyone was guilty of that.

Let's just admit that. No, it's G.I. Joe, Star Wars. We were good. They were bad. They did all the evil. We just liberated camps. You put people in camps. What are you talking about?

He just, Some of you are the same generations who just got done killing off the Apache are generals and things in World War II. Think about that. Airgrid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area, and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say, online or in person. so together we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community.

Find out more at airgrid.com. This Black Friday, game, stream and go full speed with one gig, sky broadband, and watch unmissable shows like all her fault on Sky. These nice people killing you, John. And Ballad of a Small Player starring Colin Farrell on Netflix. I've made some mistakes, right, who hasn't? Get one gig Sky Broadband, Essential TV and Netflix, all for just 44. four euro a month for 12 months.

Our lowest ever price. Availability subject location, new customers only, 12 month minimum terms, standard pricing thereafter, TV and broadband sold separately. Terms apply for more infoise, east sky.a slash beads. That's fucked. That's true. So let's finish up with this part. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the over-socialized type,

never rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly, they sometimes do. over-socialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society's most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence for them is a form of liberation. In other words, by committing violence, they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are overssocialized, these restraints have been more confining for them than for others, hence their need to break free from them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values.

If they engage in violence, they claim to be fighting against racism or the like. Right. I can loot a store and grab stuff I want because I'm fighting racism and police abuse or whatever. And no, you're not. You're just greedy and looting a store. But they often do this in masochistic fashion, too, where they go lay in the middle of a road or glue themselves like extinction rebellion.

Like, I want to go glue my hands to the parking lot or whatever, or link up. in arms and block highway or do you die in and lay on the ground, stupid masochistic stuff like that. But he's right in the sense that they will do violence when society says, hey, violence never the answer, don't be violent.

But violence is okay if you're fighting the Nazis. That became the thing. That became the window. Here's an inarguable evil Nazism, because we use violence to stop the Nazis. Therefore, if you can create a new Nazi,

violence is okay. So you're like, I'll punch a Nazi. And they don't have to be a Nazi. You just have to accuse them with being a Nazi. You're like, I'll cancel a Nazi. They don't have to be a Nazi. You just have to accuse them of being a Nazi. So it's this loophole

where you can, because canceling is an act violence, this is financial terrorism. They can do all these things so long as they tell themselves, well, that's different. They're a Nazi. I said Nazi, so now I'm allowed to punch them, cancel them, burn their

property, whatever, because they're not really a human being anymore if you're anti-Semitic. That's the greatest sin there is. Well, we saw that in the Biden speech, too, the one he did in Philadelphia with the red backdrop. He's basically putting forth that, putting forth the narrative that anyone who is ultra-maga or, you know, basically questions the 2020 election is a fascist, is, you know, is the enemy. I mean, and God, does anybody know the meaning of fascism? Total screaming in pain as they beat you.

Because not allowing people to question a 2020 election is fascism. Holy. Well, it's totalitarianism anyway. And the red background. I'm like, wow, you just, your optics, whoever did this to you, who ever thought this up? It's amazing. And just, look, the U.S. rigs elections, and they support.

terrorists. British just got caught, you know, was the one who thought up the plan to bond of Kirsch Bridge in Crimea, British S-A-S.

They did it. That's how I like we're financing acts of terrorists. They finance ISIS. Is it, if people had principles, like where, what happened

in the anti-war left? Well, it never existed. It was an anti-Bush left. It wasn't an anti-war left. It was an anti- Republican and anti-Bush. because it's not their team and they can't get power that way. They do things to ingranadize themselves and gain power.

Nothing to do with principles. They don't have sympathy for Iraqis or anything like that. They just wanted to bash the guy that wasn't on their team. Yeah. Yeah. You saw it disappear. Like Obama went in and did all the same wars and they were like, yay, this is okay now. It's like the old joke with a bomb with a rainbow on it.

Now it's all right because it's gayer. Yeah, really, you know, I remember when I was a kid being like, you know, it was obvious that a lot of the Democrats and a lot of the Republicans didn't like each other, but there was, you know, like when Tip O'Neill was Speaker of the House, I mean, Tip O'Neill wasn't this bombastic retard who just, you know, called people on the other side of the aisle immoral and, you know, fascist and everything like that. So, you know, you look 30 years later, 40 years later. Even like Gingrich, yeah, like, Yeah, yeah. Look how far we've fallen from that to Pelosi, who's talking about punching Trump in the face, and I'll love it and go to jail

and tearing up his state of union address on camera behind him. Like, how immature is that? You're like 80 years old, and you're grabbing a speech and going, and just tearing it up. Just say, look, I don't like the speech. That's acting like such a child. I'm going to rip the speech up. She did that.

Yeah. Because there's no consequence. There's no consequence for it. No consequence for any other. Like this and this, okay, so let me get to the meat of Uncle Ted. Because we bash on leftist. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But like, how did it get this way is Uncle Ted develops this theory of,

it's an evolutionary explanation for psychological ills that incorporates components of autonomy and what he calls the power process. And it's just, it's such an elegant explanation for like how he ended up like this. Yeah, you have groups that have feelings of inferiority and, and then they're over-socialized. But he's showing like all this unhappiness and depression and different, you know, especially among leftists, like leftist women consume more antidepressants

and other kinds of pills than any other demographic. They're pill popping. And this is really scary stuff. And he talks about this way later too, that rather than changing your environment, you can change your internal environment so that you can deal with it. You're going to take SSRIs and pills that affect your brain

so you're better able to tolerate conditions you couldn't tolerate otherwise. Don't change the system. Just change your brain instead. It's mild mind control. taking all these different pills and therapies and stuff. You go, let me get you back on the track. Be a nice little worker bee, you know, do this.

Don't shut up about it. But people are miserable in the kind of lifestyle they have in the industrial society. You think, well, why we have our physical needs met. We have, on paper, it looks like, definitely an improvement. We live longer, usually. We can, I don't have to hunt or farm or. go to the store and buy my food? What's wrong with that? Well, there's nothing wrong with that from the point of allowing higher special skills because your basic needs have been taking

care of. But in taking care of your physical needs, you are removing a process that was psychologically healthy that has not been replaced by something else. And this is where this is where a lot of people get lost. They think, oh, he's just, he's just, he's just one of these environmental that said hates industry. No, it's not what he's talking about. He's saying in creating an industry to meet your physical needs,

the activities that you would engage in to get those needs, fishing, farming, whatever, actualize a certain set of potentials that you need to do for goal attainment and reward that are healthy for your brain in psychology and fulfillment.

And if you don't have a surrogate activity or something to replace that process. And the autonomy is not for everyone, but it's definitely for me. It's not a component for some people's really strongly, but everyone has this goal attainment reward process they go through. And when you just have instant gratification, there was no effort to go get that sandwich or whatever, then you are not going through that process,

and that's what creates this emptiness and is a large source for all these different mental illnesses. depression, narcissism, all this stuff that are so prevalent in society is because industrial society has removed this process in our environment. We physically grew up with, you know, having to exercise a certain number of skills and stuff to attain our goals. And all that's been instantly removed. And it's very unhealthy psychologically for us. And that may be the the other route of why there are so many crazy leftists that are just sad and depressed and lashing out and rage

they need a cause they need to do a thing to fight that they needed to be something everyone agrees with this so they know they're not going to lose right so jump on a problem that's already been resolved from years ago like fighting races and whatever and they jump on it but it's this this part of the manifesto that I like the second most

is this idea of how are we psychologically evolved, just like we physically evolved. And that ties into aesthetics and other things. It's really wonderful and builds on what other philosophers, Cush Demerty to Bruce Lee have said about self-actualization too, but Uncle Ted had different elements added to it, especially when his chapters on the power process and autonomy.

That's the ones you might want to read three or four times because people usually base their thinking on heuristics they're just like Air grid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid is powering up the northwest we're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area and your input and local knowledge

are vital in shaping these plans our consultation closes on the 25th of November have your say online or in person so together we can create a more reliable sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.com. 4.6 Northwest. This Black Friday, game stream and go full speed

with one gig, Sky broadband. And watch unmissable shows like all her fault on Sky. These nice people, killing each other. And Ballad of a Small Player starring Colin Farrell on Netflix. I've made some mistakes. Right, who hasn't? Get one gig Sky Broadband, Essential TV and Netflix, all for just 44 euro a month for 12 months. Our lowest ever prize.

Availability subject location, new customers only, 12-month minimum terms, standard pricing thereafter, TV and broadband sold separately. Terms apply for more infoosies sky.a slash speeds. Environmental or something? No, it's not what he's saying. Read what he's actually saying. It's very different from what you assume he's going to say. Which is why we're going over it, right? Yeah. Well, yeah, obviously. If I'm sitting there and somebody is telling me, you know,

someone who's read the manifesto three or four times and, you know, really dug down deep into it and then somebody on the outside is telling me it means something that it's not even close to what it means. Then I'm... Yeah, he's not one of these like back-to-nature weirdos. Like, yeah, he lived in a cabin because the FBI was looking for him. But that's saying that you can find your psychological fulfillment in this a process of goal attainment and reward.

You have to have a degree of effort. And he gives the example of like, if you were, well, I'll give this example. If I was to play some four-year-old in chess, I would win, unless he's some prodigy weirdo. But I'm not going to get any enjoyment out of that. It's like, yep, poop, got your queen, whatever, got your king. And if I played some supercomputer and I lost every time, there's no fulfillment in just getting completely crushed or completely smashing something. there has to be a moderate amount of effort to make the reward have value

to make the end of the goal have value right it doesn't even have to have an end point like with martial arts or something like that you could just constantly have self-improvement and getting better and better at a certain set of skills right because it takes a lot of effort to develop them or whatever you're doing playing a piano when you master a thing

that's psychologically healthy You don't really need to play a piano or no moitai or whatever for the end product. I can go around and get in the street fights and I guess you could use piano for money eventually. But that's not the point. It's like in learning the skill, you're exercising something that we needed in evolution psychologically to go through goal attainment to procure happiness. and stability in your brain. And when you don't have any skills, which again, you look at leftists,

they're all a bunch of losers. That's why they get so attracted to the easiest thing, which is to claim moral superiority and champing around all these causes that have already been resolved. Well, I appreciate this. Give your plugs, and I'll let you get back to your life. Well, we get, like,

we only talked the very end about the power process that could be even a part two on that thing but we definitely it does take part too it does take some time to go over the overs socialization and the feelings of inferiority

and it's uh because that you have to have that piece before you go to the next part but the next part is where it really starts coming together right what really adds to Uncle Ted like why he's listen the guy is serial killer fuck him you know like that's we're just talking about his writing

He was also a victim of NK Ultra. So that, you know, no one's praising his word because of he sent bombs in the mail. You should make that real clear. That's not why. But what he said is what he said, irrespective of how he behaved, doesn't change what he wrote.

But we probably wouldn't be reading what he wrote if he didn't send bombs in the mail. That's his argument, right? It's like, well, would you have even noticed this? if I hadn't done something super extreme. Like, well, if you had waited two more years, you could have put the whole manifesto online. Yeah.

Because Windows 95 came out, and I would have read it. I don't know. But, yeah, hard to say. And it was important enough for him. And if you look at some of his targets, it's not, I mean, they're kind of assholes, too. But it still doesn't does it. It's like, because to him, he sees this as an existential crisis.

He's like, we're going off the cliff. in his mind. And... Well, I mean, look at the world now. You all need to notice? Look at the world now. He's sadly correct in all his predictions thus far. It just seems like, well, could you attempt to get it out in a magazine or something first before he sent to bombs?

I don't know. Actually, he did. So that doesn't work either. Yeah, I mean, I don't know. maybe I'm just socialized to say look don't ever send bombs of people but

I don't know maybe we wouldn't have read it but he did do that and I did read it because of that that's why I was like ooh what do you want to say so bad right?

Like he went to jail for the rest of his life and killed people just because he wanted you to publish his book I got to read that book that's why I read it

and I mean 11 paragraphs then I was like already telling other people to read it like whoa this you don't wonder they didn't want anybody to see this right oh the Washington oh it's amazing that the Washington Post was the first one to publish this and they took an insane amount of flag for it

no no it was penhouse magazine was it really that wasn't good enough penhouse published it and then yeah the the nudie magazine. But that wasn't a wide enough or serious enough publication for Ted. And then his brother realized like, oh, that's him

and told on him. But the Washington Post yeah, I guess I mean, hell, I respect Pennhouse more than Washington Post after all the garbage is in the Washington Post. They're a bunch of warmongering nuts. But yeah, and it's, the Washington Post online still has the whole

manifesto. He had a couple a couple of bits in Spanish that they'd change in English, but yeah, that's about it. Ted's fluent in several languages, by the way. He taught himself some more how he's in jail. Oh, wow. Interesting, very interesting guy, man. This is like, like Mike Tyson, man.

Like, the guy went to jail for rape. I personally don't think he did it, but he said he'd done other things that he'd gotten away with. I'd still interview him. You know what I mean? I feel like, it's not just because I like boxing. I just like, what a character, man. Guys had a really weird life.

Kicking Don King in the head and 1-6 miles and an hour down the road and just, you know. Tell everybody where they can find your stuff. Well, I'm banned on almost everything, but I do have a website, which is the anti-Neocon report. It's A-N-C report.com. And I have a substack,

just Ryan Dawson on substack. And, yeah, I use all the super-neocon-report. for alternative stuff, Rumble, Odyssey, Gab, and I'm on Cozy TV now with the America Firsters. I have nothing to do with them, but they let me on the platform. That's so cozy.tv.com.tv slash Dawson, pretty much every day at 8 p.m. I'll do a live stream there. Cool, man. I appreciate it. Thank you. I really enjoy talking to you about these kind of topics, please awesome. I'm going to see you in Texas.

Oh, yeah, man. Oh, yeah. All right. I'll talk to you later. Thanks, Pat. Thanks, Pat. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekingana show, returning the Prudentialist. How are you down? I'm doing great, Pete. Happy to be here. Thank you for joining me for this. These are always fun to do. These are always well-received. when I read through the whole industrial society in its future with my friend Aaron, like the first episode we did on that

is one of my most downloaded episodes ever. I mean, it is like in the top five. And people really, really enjoy hearing Ted because once you read Ted, as you know, you were sending me, you sent me an article in the middle of the night last night. You're just laughing because it's, it's like I said before we started.

there are things that are going to make you laugh out a lot, and then there are things that are going to make you, you know, throw your hands up and go, you know, fuck, how do we get, how do we get past this? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, whether it's reading like, what will you call the classics, I guess, like the systems needest trick or, you know,

industrial society in its future. I mean, there's a lot in there for you to really take in and consider. And I mean, I get that he's a meme nowadays, which is kind of unfortunate, that this man's writing an intellectual canon is now going to be reduced to kids always on them damn phones kind of memes. But no, his writing, I think, is essential for anyone on the right to kind of understand what kind of, you know, genie we've let out at the bottle, this sort of technological Pandora's box. And not so much, I would say for, I mean, there are very real industrial problems

and environmental issues that need to be addressed, but also just the mass social psychology and the impact that technology has on things like basic assumption groups, the mind of the crowd, you know, like just imagine Gustav LeBahn with, you know, with a smartphone. Like it's crazy to think about, but Ted gets to it very clearly even before the craziness of, you know, the post-2007 smartphone age. Yeah, he, when once you get, once you realize that he's writing about the human condition,

more than he's writing about technology. And it's really, he's diagnosed in the human condition. I mean, people had done it before. You know, he was basing off the works like Joccolulu, people like that. He wasn't 100% original in his thought. Airgrid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the Northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans.

Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say, online or in person. So together we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.i.4.Northwest. Inflation pushes up building costs, so it's important to review your home insurance cover to make sure you have the right cover for your needs. Under-insurance happens where there's a difference between the value of your cover and the cost of repairing damage or replacing contents.

It's a risk you can avoid. Review your home insurance policy regularly. For more, visit Understandinginsurance.i. forward slash under-insurance, brought to you by Insurance Ireland. But when he really starts, what he had over-a-lul was he got to see technology go even further. you know it's like um you know it's like when you realize that like Carl Schmidt lived into the 80s and you're like what everything that he saw and everything that he wrote and he's like oh man i mean basically i was a prophet and i mean that's why my friend ryan calls ted the prophet

because he has predicted a lot of this yeah i mean when ted first started writing and even after his time in prison when he still continued to write and correspond with those that had believed in his work, I mean, he comes to conclusions that we're just beginning to take for granted. It's not like the pseudo realities that we all live in that, you know, what, you know, Lippman talked about a century ago has changed. I mean, a lull, Lippman, Bernays, all of these folks, you know, he identified and then realized that that can be technologically amplified by the ways in which, our industrial society lives in. So yeah, I mean, when you look at him more of as a writer of the human condition, like you said,

you really begin to understand that he is predicting and has predicted, and I foresee that he will continue to be right for long after my lifetime of where we're going. But I think for what we're going to read today, he sort of poses maybe he'll be right again, just in the way that we all like to meme about with the respects to collapse or catabolic collapse. And so I think that we've got a good reading and episode for your listeners. Yeah, this title is called Why the Technological System Will Destroy Itself. And if I'm correct, reading it off of the Anarchus Library website, it's from July 21st, 2011. But it looks like it may not have been released for a couple years after he wrote it.

Yeah. So, all right, let me share this and we'll get to reading. Sounds great. Yeah, I had, here's the irony of all ironies is I got an email this morning, suggesting that when I should take classes on how to read better. Because apparently people want me to sound like a robot. And, you know, I guess it's, I guess it's not folksy when I come across words that I can't pronounce. I should be looking at every word beforehand and figuring that out.

So, no, I mean, thanks, thank you for the suggestion, but I certainly will not be doing that. If you want a robot to read you things, do subscribe to our friend's skeptical waves. But I mean, I think the human aspect of this is far more important. All right. So why the technological system will destroy itself? our discussion, and please stop me anytime.

Absolutely. Our discussion deals with self-propagating systems. By a self-proping system, self-prop system for short, we mean a system that tends to promote its own survival and propagation. A system may propagate itself in either or both of two ways. The system may indefinitely increase its own size and or power, or it may give rise to new systems that possess some of its own traits. The most obvious examples of self-propagating systems are biological organisms.

Groups of biological organisms can also constitute self-prop systems, example, wolf packs and hives of honeybees. Particularly important for our purposes are self-prop systems that consist of groups of human beings. For example, nations, corporations, labor unions, and political parties. also some groups that are not cleverly delimited and lack formal organization, such as schools of thought, social networks, and subcultures. Just as wolf packs and beehives are self-propagating without any conscious intention on the part of wolves or bees to propagate their packs or their hives,

there is no reason why a human group cannot be self-propagating independently of any intention on the part of the individuals who comprise that of the group. I mean, I wonder, though, you know, like, there's no reason why human group can't be self-propagating independently. I mean, you know, that would be basic human instinct, right, to go out and reproduce, but we're not like wolves or honeybees where that's just instinctual go lay eggs or go have, you know, mate during, while you're in heat.

Now it's just more of a conscious choice whether or not we do it or not. So I wonder if I'll get into that in this one, you know, whether or not we'll see a our conscious decision or our programming that we see in these basic assumption groups, because it makes me wonder if Kaczynski's read like Wilford Byon on like social psychology. But I mean, we'll see. But yeah, self-propagating got a corrective system, kind of Marx system in its analysis, when like Marx critiques like the essence of capital because it can be a self-correcting system. But in this instance, you know, self-propagation means of survival.

Right. And Marx's analysis is, as Hans-Armanoppa says, True about 90% of the time. Yeah. It's worth the read. Just not the communist manifesto. Stop reading that, people. It's not for you.

If A and B are systems of any kind, self-propagating or not, and if A is a functioning component of B, then we will call A a subsystem of B, and we will call B a subsystem of A. For example, in human hunting and gathering societies, individuals are men. members of bands, and bands are often organized into tribes. Individuals, bands, and tribes are all self-prop systems. The individual is a subsystem of the band. The band is a subsystem of the tribe, and the tribe is a subsystem of each band that belongs to it, and each band is a subsystem of every individual who belongs to that band. It is also true that each individual is a subsystem of the tribe and that the tribe is a super system of every individual who belongs to a band that

belongs to the tribe. You want to go at that word salad? I mean, I understand. I just, he's outlining the basic social organization of how this works here. I mean, bands, tribes, individuals can all be self-prop systems, but we are subsystems of that band if we belong to a social organization. So outlining the maps here, got it. The principle of natural selection is operative not only in biology, but in any environment in which self-propagating systems are present.

The principle can be stated roughly as follows. Those self-propagating systems, having the traits that best suit them to survive and propagate themselves, tend to survive and propagate themselves better than other self-propagating systems. This is of course an obvious tautology, so it tells us nothing new. but it can serve to call our attention to factors that we might otherwise overlook. We are about to advance several propositions. We can't prove these propositions, but they are intuitively plausible, and they seem consistent with the observable behavior of self-propagating systems

as represented by biological organisms and human, formal and informal organizations. In short, we believe these propositions to be true or as close to the truth as they can be for present purposes. Do you want me to just go on to Prop 1? Yeah, let's go for it. All right. Proposition 1. In any environment that is sufficiently rich, self-propagating systems will arise, and natural selection will lead to the evolution of self-propagating systems having increasingly complex, subtle, and sophisticated means of surviving and propagating themselves. I mean, so far, it seems like a pretty solid proposition to take is true. I mean, any environment that is capable of supporting life leads to evolution.

I mean, numerous species other than human beings have complex formal systems of communication, ants, honeybees, wolf packs like he's already mentioned, humans, even, you know, various monkeys and tribes like that that we've observed that are aggressive or engage in war that we've documented with chimpanzees. So, yeah, I mean, so far, right? Like, we're getting a pretty solid proposition for what's to come here. I don't know what could be a corollary. to this other than, you know, throughout the history of evil, you know, the evolutionary record that we've got, you know, there's always been some kind of sophisticated tribal ways and means of territory, scent marking, stuff like that.

Sure. And I think this is also, this is also shining a light upon the fact that people will, if people have, if it's sufficiently rich enough, that they will create things to make their lives more easy. which allows them to propagate themselves more efficiently. Yeah, self-propagating system will have not only like complex means of surviving, like social rules and stigmas, religions, etc., but also technology. Right. Yeah. Okay. Commenting on Proposition 1, natural selection operates relative to particular periods of time.

Let's start at some given point in time that we can call time zero. I'm sorry, I have to laugh. Those self-prop systems that are most likely to survive or have surviving progeny, five years from time zero, are those that are best suited to survive and propagate themselves in competition with other self-prop systems during the five-year period following time zero. That feels like every, like, basic, you know, business 101 starting thing. Like, you know, most businesses don't survive in five years time.

So I don't know why my brain just went to that for some reason, but here we are. My brain went to bodies, millions of bodies lying in a ditch on the side of the road. Oh, a real time zero. Let's go. These will not necessarily be the same as those self-prop systems that in the absence of competition during the five-year period would be best suited to survive. and propagate themselves during the 30 years following time zero. Similarly, the systems best suited to survive competition during the first 30 years following time zero are not necessarily those that, in the absence of competition during the 30-year period,

would be best suited to survive and propagate themselves for 200 years, and so forth. Basic evolutionary stuff right there. I mean, you know, humans from 10,000 years. go on the, you know, ice ages probably wouldn't do so well today. Yeah, he's going to give an example here. Oh, there we go. For example, suppose a forested region is occupied by a number of small rival kingdoms. These kingdoms that clear the most land for agricultural use can plant more crops and therefore can support a larger population other than other kingdoms. This gives them a military advantage over their rivals. If any kingdom restrains itself

from excessive forest clearance out of a concern for the long-term consequences, then that kingdom places itself in a military disadvantage and is eliminated by the most powerful kingdoms. Thus, the region comes to be dominated by kingdoms that cut down their forests recklessly. The resulting deforestation leads eventually to ecological disaster and therefore to the collapse of all the kingdoms. Here a trait that is advantageous or even indispensable for a kingdom's short-term survival, recklessness in cutting trees leads in the long term to the demise of the same kingdom.

I mean, there you go. I mean, I see this actually with artificial intelligence because I think that for those that are raising the alarm bells for it, I mean, as much as that Yudkowski guy looks like a total meme, like I saw him do an interview with a Ross Scott of a cursed farms on YouTube. And I mean, He had like the red t-shirt, the, like, vest and the fedora. And he looked like a 2011 new atheist. But, you know, is wild as some of his concerns can be. Like, I could foresee, and the same thing with, like, nuclear weapons, or any basic technological accelerationist bent.

Like, I wonder if Kaczynski ever had a chance to read Paul Virillo when Paul Virillio was still alive, because, you know, this is a lot of what Verilio is concerned about us is that we will inevitably. because humanity's technological progress is vastly accelerated since the end of the 19th century, that we're going to move ourselves so fast in a direction that whatever accident that we may have, because each new invention creates an accident, that we're going to inevitably destroy ourselves. And he talks about things like the genetic Hiroshima and things like that, which is like on like paper, right, unfathomably based name.

But he's just like, no, like mankind will accelerate with its technology. We may destroy ourselves because of it. And I can't help but think about that with this little example here. Like short-term survival, right, in terms of like great power struggles geopolitically, you need to be the strongest military that tends to mean having the largest army, which means having the largest population. And so you see that kind of right now with, say, like the U.S. and China, right? Like there's always these fights over quantum computing and artificial intelligence.

And China wants to increase its nuclear weapons, armaments, and things like that. And so you're in a weird position where all technological advancements, which are ordinarily based in terms of military readiness, because military readiness is usually the only way to guarantee survival at the end of the day. I mean, this kind of gives pathways to acceleration that can lead to severe ecological consequences, but also just like, you know, millions must die.jpg, you know, so.

The example illustrates the fact that where a self-prop system exercises foresight in the sense that concern for its own long-term survival and propagation leads it to place limitations on its efforts for short-term survival and propagation, the system puts itself at a competitive disadvantage relative to those self-propped systems that pursue short-term survival and propagation without restraint. That leads us to Proposition 2. In the short-term, natural selection favors self-propagating systems that pursue their own

short-term advantage with little or no regard for long-term consequences. So he's, we start talking about, um, high time preference. High and low-time preference now. Yeah. Seems to, um, he's on the side of one of those right here. Sure is. All right. So he says a corollary to proposition two is proposition three.

Self-propagating subsystems of a given super system tend to become dependent on the super system and on the specific conditions that prevail within the super system. Why am I thinking about certain cities in America? Yep. I think so. Yeah, but let's go on before it gets too bad. This means that between the super system and its self-prop subsystems, there tends to develop

a relationship of such a nature that in the events, of destruction of the super system or of any destruction acceleration of changes in the conditions prevailing within the super system, the subsystems can neither survive nor propagate themselves. IQ shredders, bio-Leninism, you know, things that kind of go part and parcel with a lot of like human biodiversity talking points. I just, I see them on display right here. You know, a super system that can subsidize or enable a variety of high time preference. you know, immediate kind of survival strategies if that thing were to go down in heck in a handbasket. Things are going to get really bad really quickly. And my brain just thinks

about like when Biden took office, he had that meeting with like Al Sharpton and other black leaders. And he's just like, listen, like, we're not going to be in charge forever. We're not going to be the majority forever. So you need to learn to get along with everybody else. And it's just like the super system's going to change. Yeah. Let's keep going. A self-prop. with sufficient foresight would make provision for its own or its descendants survival in the event of the collapse or destabilization of the super system. But as long as the super system exists and remains more or less stable, natural selection favors those subsystems that take fullest advantage of the opportunities available within the super system and disfavors those subsystems that waste some of their resources in preparing themselves to survive the eventual destabilization of the super system.

super system. Under these conditions, self-propped systems will tend very strongly to become incapable of surviving the destabilization of any super system to which they belong. Like the other propositions put forward in this essay, Proposition 3 has to be applied with a dose of common sense. If the super system in question is weak and loosely organized, or if it has no more than a modest effect on the conditions in which its subsystems exist, the subsystems may not be become strongly dependent on the super system. Among hunter-gatherers in some, not all environments, a nuclear family would be able to survive and propagate itself independently of the band to which it belongs. Because tribes of hunter-gatherers are loosely organized, it seems certain that in

almost all cases a hunter-gathering band would be able to survive independently of the tribe to which it belongs. Many labor unions might be able to survive the demise of a confederation of labor such as the AFL-CIO, because such an event might not be, because such an event might not fundamentally affect the conditions under which labor unions have to function. But labor unions could not survive the demise of the modern industrial society or even the demise merely of the legal and constitutional framework that makes it possible for labor unions as we know them to operate. Yeah, I mean, I'm already thinking of government.

here, right? Like, I mean, you would want, and this sort of does echo the truth, right, of like, Hapa and others that you kind of do want a destabilized system here, because democracy, you know, has a tendency to self-perpetuate in a way that collectivizes itself more power from others, right? You develop a patronage network to where political machines now, they solely exist for the purposes of propagating and maintaining, say, grievances or, like, a specific racial bent. I mean, I know that La Rasa has changed his name, right? But like even then, right? If immigration were to stop tomorrow, like how long term could La Rasa function or exist,

especially like deportation? These sort of political superstructures that we have, like legal frameworks, constitutional understanding, I mean, they're also cultural, right? Like, so even if the constitution disappears tomorrow, there's still a large portion of people that would adhere to constitutional, you know, Anglo-American liberal principles of democracy and freedom. but how well does that function now when there's no rule of law or governing authority? And so, you know, it's not just organized labor, but I mean, it's the basic components of, you know, the peace and quiet and, you know, suburban lifestyle that so many Americans enjoy nowadays.

And, you know, once you, and I mean, you also see this, too, with respects to, you know, the creation of new tribes and territories. I mean, everyone, like, sort of picks like the Sykes-Poc Treaty with respects to the, the, Middle East, but I mean, even then, right? Like, you now have to deal with like a legal superstructure borders that aren't yours, but at the same time, they are yours now because you're technically sovereign. And all of a sudden, you're now having to deal with the competition of like various different ethnic groups, religious diversity and institutions that are all trying to make do. And it kind of proposes this interesting corollary to this point here, because now all these subsystems are still surviving without the overarching superstructure of, say, like, sovereign, Iraqi

government because you still have the Kurdistan regional government. You have a lot of like Shiite influence from Iran. The Sunnis are not as popular as they were once were. And then you have various other little minority groups. And sort of does illustrate that if you haven't attained like a singularity of like total centralization of state power, then, you know, things are probably going to continue on as business as usual is Kaczynski is writing here. But I mean, in a state like Germany or the UK or Canada where there's like a national health service like there's like little to know federal aspects. I mean, you have local councils and things, but everything really is more or less determined by parliament or worse Brussels with the European Union. I don't know how you survive

if you got rid of those things. And you saw that, I think most eloquently with, you know, Brexit because we want to leave the superstructure. We think that we can do just fine with our own national government, our own national sovereignty, our own will, so be it. And for, three years, right? Like Brussels would like campaign for the Lib Dems to get another referendum. You would get the home office actively working against those interests because they saw themselves as dependent on the legal superstructure. Those were their sinecures. Those were their jobs. Those were their gimmies. Those were their ways to get more money and to rule indirectly. And so we're just in a really interesting position now where we're now watching transnational legal superstructures trying to create more dependent states. And it's self, propagating. And once again, Kaczynski's kind of on point here. Well, I wonder if the United States, because of federalism and because of a history, especially in the south of localism, is probably better than most places to survive it. You know, you mentioned Hapa in the beginning. And I mean, in 1997, Hapa was, you know,

laying out localism as, you know, local bonds, building up. local economies, things like that. And all right. So after that little break there, yeah, what I was saying about the small subsystems in the United States is that Hapa had started talking about that in 1997 and 25 years later,

it looks like 26 years later, it looks like he was a profit when you consider basically how our national is breaking down. Yeah. And I mean, I think what Kizintz, he's also really just getting it here is that a self-prop system, right? Like it's like the social version of gray goo, right? Everyone tells you that like nanomachines, right?

Paper, like the most common example is like make paper clips and the AI, you know, tells itself, okay, well, we'll make all the paper clips in the world, which means we're going to eat all of humanity, all of the earth, and it'll be nothing but a giant paperclip machine. Whereas in this instance, he's just talking about on a social level, on an evolutionary biology and psychology level, like a self-prop system is always going to central. I mean, we see that with Bertrand de Juvenile, like on power, the natural history of its growth. That tends to happen that you want to sort of make sure that you can't be not as dependent on that system, especially with the high low versus middle model.

And so, yeah, I mean, Hoppa and Kaczynski here kind of make a very important point that unless you are not dependent on those structures. I mean, there's plenty of things. Like, unless you're an off-gritter, right? I mean, most people that, you know, have, like, farms or gardens and can take care of themselves, like, they're still dependent on, you know, the laws and taxes and things like that, even though we complained about them every April 15th or so. I mean, like, it really does illustrate what you were saying earlier before we took that little break there was that about the South. I mean, why, even though, like, the Civil War has been over since 1865. I mean, people still want to go to war with the concept of the South because despite that huge, you know, reunification sort of American Americanization identity, especially in the late 19th century, early 1900s, the South is still the only place that has maintained a regional identity where people still know each other, people still remain, you know, like they're very skeptical of outsiders

and things like that. But nowadays, it's, they still want that gone. They still wish that they could burn down, you know, in March to the South that they so wish. And I think it does illustrate that on paper, the federal system that the United States have may offer a nice defense to this, but we are, the federalism we have is what is often called coercive federalism by a lot of con law scholars, that, you know, it's play ball or no money for you. And again, that's the subject of taxation and revenues, what Joseph Sobrun was talking about back in the 80s that just, you know, we talk about taxation as theft and his confiscation because it's the ultimate tool of political power the state uses to rob you and then fund your enemies.

And we see this here. Like, we rob you because we want the superstructure to live and we want you dependent. And in the long term, that may not guarantee your survival. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I grew up up north and I moved to the south on purpose. And I don't think I'm ever leaving here, man. It's just, it's totally, it's much different vibe, much different vibe, especially the small town, we're getting ready to move to a small town.

And I mean, the people are ready. Like, I'm sure it's because it's like, hey, who are these people and everything? But I almost feel like they chose us to buy this house and have this land because it was, you know, they looked at us and they're like, these are the kind of people we want around here. Yeah. Yeah. The selling agent was actually like their, her family like owns half the land in the town. They're safe. Yeah.

Yeah, they're going to do everything they can to protect what they have. So I'm pretty sure that that town's not going to go to shit like other places. So, yeah. All right, moving on. Clearly, a system cannot be effectively organized for its own survival and propagation unless the different parts of the system can promptly communicate with one another and lend aid to one another. Moreover, in order to offer. operate effectively throughout a given geographical region, a self-propped system must be able to receive prompt information from and act promptly upon every part of the region. Consequently,

and this is Proposition 4. Problems of transportation and communication impose a limit on the size of the geographical region over which a self-prop system can extend its operation. I wonder if he'll let's I'm trying I'm trying to read ahead and see this because I mean we have the I mean communication is almost instantaneous I mean and into a point where you know Americans and you know flyover country can watch like live streamed GoPro footage of like the war in Ukraine and it's just like uh well we'll see but even then right like you're not going to have total access to information law enforcement is a really good example a lot of the FBI is dependent on access to local info from cops and vice versa. So there's probably problems,

obviously, but I mean, we've got some pretty instantaneous near, you know, panopticon-like, you know, control over how information flows and what we can monitor. Right. So he says, building off Proposition 4, human experience suggests Proposition 5, the most important and the only consistent limit on the size of the geographical regions over which, self-propagating human groups extend their operations, is the limit imposed by the available means of transportation and communication? In other words, while not all self-propagating human groups tend to extend their operations over a region of maximum size, natural selection tends to produce some self-propagating human groups that operate over regions approaching the maximum

size, allowed by the available means of transportation and communication. I can just hear Matt Iglesias, you know, shilling is one billion Americans' book. Today there is, excuse me, today there is quick transportation and almost instant communication between any two parts of the world. Hence, Proposition 6. In modern times, natural selection tends to produce some self-propagating human groups whose operations span the entire globe. Moreover, even if humans are someday replaced by machines. or other entities, natural selection will still tend to produce some self-propagating systems whose operations span the entire globe. Current experience strongly confirms his proposition.

We see global superpowers, global corporations, global political movements, global religions, global criminal networks, etc. Proposition 6, we argue, is not dependent on any particular traits of human beings, but only on the general properties of self-prop systems. So there is no reason to doubt that the proposition will remain true if and when humans are replaced by other entities. Natural selection will continue to produce or maintain self-prop systems whose operations span the entire globe.

I like his if and when, you know, he seems pretty sure there, which, I mean, I don't blame him. We're likely to replace ourselves. with something. No. Let's refer to such systems as global self-prop systems. Instant worldwide communications are still a relatively new phenomenon, and their full consequences have yet to be developed.

In the future, we can expect global self-propped systems to play an even more important role than they do today. Proposition 7. Where, as today, problems of transportation and communication do not constitute effective limitations on the size of the geographical regions over the world. over which self-propagating systems operate. Natural selection tends to create a world in which power is mostly concentrated in the possession of a relatively small number of global self-propagating systems.

So far so true. Yeah, I don't think any of us are going to argue. Yeah, no. It's a relatively small number of global self-propagating systems. All right. All your choices are global homo right now. and some kind of third worldism. This is what we're getting pushed here.

Yeah. Or bricks. Wow. That nice multipolar rules-based system where we're going to repeat the same like, you know, racialized talking points from the Cold War. Like, you know, the more things change,

the more they save the same. But here are the small number of global self-propicating systems. This proposition, too, is suggested by human experience. but it's easy to see why the proposition is true independently of anything specifically human. Among global self-prop systems, natural selection will favor those that have greater power, will have the greatest power, global or large-scale self-propped systems that are weaker will tend to be eliminated or subjugated. Small-scale self-prop systems that are too numerous or too subtle to be noticed individually by the dominant global self-prop systems may retain some degree of autonomy, but each of them will have only local influence.

It may be answered that a coalition of small-scale self-prop systems could challenge the global self-prop systems, but if small-scale self-prop systems organize themselves into a coalition having worldwide influence, the coalition will itself become a global self-prop system. He just basically described the network state, you know, or the, yeah, what is it called the network state or the startup state or something like that with a book that that Indian guy wrote the other year just talking about how like startup culture and small localized communities like you know it can generate autonomy inside already autonomous territory you have the network states what it's called and it's just yeah he just calls it out like that'll just become a global self-prop system of

startup culture so I mean it's funny like think I'm just this is a side note here but it's just like all these like sort of, you know, big pushing for small scale self-propped systems. It's all pushed by like X or currently Silicon Valley guys or techno-optimistic leftists that are like, well, maybe we should plan ahead for the future and talk about like regenerative farming. I think about like the rhizoma school and things like that. And so, you know, there's this like cognizant self-awareness that like the track that we're going on that Kaczynski's talking about here. like we're we need to plan ahead for the future but at the same time right you're also trying to prop yourself up and this what would inevitably become like a global self-prop

system and so you can either retain local regional autonomy because I think they've got like something in like yuriquet or whatever to help farm or um you you inevitably get subjugated which i mean most techno optimism i see that gets talked about whether it's like palladium or any like venture capitalist right like all of these things are still predicated on the super system either of the USG, right, or of like the global economic system still existing. And so, you know, what resistance are you willing to have that either doesn't like completely destroy it or replace it, right? Power transition theory 101. Or are you willing to play a little push and pull with the current superstructure? And I mean, I think that Kaczynski and I think

anyone sort of on the right at this point is going to look at the global superstructure and be like, well, this is not poised to last for very long. So, I mean, we'll see where he goes on here. But yeah, World Systems, there we go. A little bit of Wallerstein right there. So I'll just shut up and we'll keep reading. Well, the interesting thing here is I have an episode with my friend Tommy Simmons, who's been, he was like on the ESG stuff four years ago.

Yeah. And he fed me. I was sitting in an airport one day and he just like starts sending me all these articles. And he's like, here, these are all. All these people are talking about localism is the answer. And they all turned out to be globalists. They're all globalists. So, you know, the question in the episode we did, and if I remember, I'll link it with

this is, why would globalists be pushing localism? And, yeah. I mean, because they see the writing on the wall or that, you know, might as well get in on what survives afterwards. Right. I mean, if I were a smart cooking. and I like to think that I am, but if I were one of those guys that has made his way to the top through Lord knows what kind of devilish dealings, you know, I would look at the writing on the wall, too,

being like, how do I escape, Mephistophiles coming to, you know, collect his dues and, oh, you know, localism and regenerative agriculture and plant-based foods, we really need to save the planet, everybody, you know, like, I'd imagine that's a really quick way to go about it, but it really does tell you that who's the ones that are, like, the last, like, 10 years or like since 2008, and I don't know how, like, correct economically this theory is, but I've seen it pushed that, like, the low interest rates of, like, the post-2007 world led to this just boom, because it was money for nothing, right, with how the Fed was doing it with, like, nearly negative interest rates or near zero rates for the longest time, you know, why not invest in something like BuzzFeed or some weird

startup culture in Silicon Valley? Because, like, it's money for nothing. Why the hell not? Even if you make a loss, you know, there's plenty of money to go around. And so you have this, like, whole span of, like, techno-optimist proto-woke culture that has led to things like ESG, global governance, etc. And, you know, eventually, like, I think everyone kind of knows that, like, some kind of recession or collapses in the near horizon. And so it's like, well, we should probably think about how, what our escape plan is or what our option is. And so if the, you know, if this means everyone needs to return to farming or regenerative agriculture, environmental causes, ESG, etc. Like, that seems like where we would go for because the system has to evolve, as he talks,

about, I think in like Proposition 1, about, well, these things enable the evolution or for something else to come out of this current self-prop system. And, well, as long as, you know, we've got technological society, you know, techno capital, then, you know, that's what they're going to do. All right. Moving on. We can speak of the world system, meaning all things that exist on Earth, together with the functional relations among them. The world system probably should be regarded as a self-prop system, but whether it is or not is irrelevant for present purposes. To summarize, then, the world system is approaching a condition in which it will be dominated by a relatively small number of extremely powerful global self-prop systems.

These global systems will compete for power, as they must do in order to have any chance of survival, and they will compete for power in the short term, with little or no regard for long-term consequences, proposition two. under these conditions, intuition tells us that desperate competition among the global self-propped systems will tear the world system apart. It sounds like de-globalization. All of the white papers on de-globalization is that you're not going to get unipolarity, so you're going to get smaller, regionalized blocks on a global scale,

all with their own respective intermittent economies trying to shore up power and, grow their spears of influence. I have an idea, but I want to have an idea of something I want to say, but I want to read a little further and see if it feeds into it. Let's try to formulate the intuition more clearly. For some hundreds of millions of years, the terrestrial environment has had some degree of stability in the sense that conditions on Earth, though variable,

have remained within certain limits that have allowed the evolution of complex life forms, such as fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. In the immediate future, all self-propped systems on this planet, including self-proping human groups, and any purely machine-based systems derived from them, will have evolved while conditions have remained within these same limits or at most within somewhat wider ones. By Proposition 3, the Earth's self-propped systems will have become dependent for their survival on the fact that conditions have remained within these limits.

large-scale self-propped human groups, as well as any purely machine-based self-prop systems, will be dependent also on conditions of more recent origin relating to the way the world system is organized, for example, conditions pertaining to economic relationships. The rapidity with which these conditions change must remain within certain limits, else the self-prop systems will not survive. This doesn't mean that all the world's self-prop systems will not survive. systems will die if future conditions or the rapidity with which they change slightly exceed some of these limits. But it does mean that if conditions go far enough beyond some of the limits,

many self-prop systems are likely to die. And if conditions ever vary widely enough outside of the limits, then with near certainty, all of the world's more complex self-propped systems will die without progeny. With several self-prop systems of global reach armed with the colossal powers of modern technology and competing for immediate power while exercising no self-restraint from concern for long-term consequences. It is extremely difficult to imagine that conditions on this planet will be pushed far outside of all earlier limits and battered around erratically with the result that all of the Earth's more complex self-propped systems will die without progeny. I mean, yeah. I just,

is what we're, I mean, I think the point that he made earlier, um, around Proposition 3 that he said there about the self-pro, we're all dependent on the fact that we've, we've remained in these limits. I mean, like the Western world has been more or less conditioned since like the 1400s, right? The post, you know, black death world of like exploration, proto-global commerce, a global economy, territorial, like disputes and empire. Like the Western world, is still used to that 500 years on, or 600 years on. And so, like, I, a world without empire or a world without, like, that kind of, like, superstructure that we all kind of take for granted, like, nations rise, like, power is acquired,

capital flows. I don't know any system that we have today, at least in the West, that would be like, yeah, we could probably survive, you know, if that were to disappear tomorrow, like, or even the rigidity of, like and again like it goes back to things other than i think about like nuclear war things like that you know like what survives that we don't know because we've never pushed the earth to those limits and he kind of points that out at the last part that you read to like yeah you're probably not going to have any progeny because we're only used to existing for hundreds if not thousands of years now under these specific systems right you know i'm i was as he was talking about small

systems. I was thinking about a certain country in the Middle East that seems to control all of these systems and how that, I mean, the most important systems that we have, basically, they have people on, you know, at the top of and how that is, how that affects all of this. Because, I mean, Ted's a boomer. He's not going to, he's not going to talk about that. You know, he's not going to bring that up because he would... No. No. But that makes it all the more dangerous because really when you look at it, our world systems are centralized

under one spirit of the age. Yeah. And it's very prominent no matter where you go that there's that. I mean, even in the East, right? Like, even in like sort of the... I mean, they're sort of the only ones that haven't had as much inculturation. to that world system. I mean,

like this is where you'll see people say things like base China or like third positionist or NASBOLs will tell you that like, you know, socialism with Chinese or capitalism with like Chinese characteristics or something like that. Like if you are a more or less like homogenized self-prop system of say like the majority ethnic group inside China, right? That governs things.

You want to make sure that you don't fall into a property. got, you know, self-profit prop system that can infiltrate, subvert, take over. So, I mean, even Japan is like this with respect to immigration and things like that. I mean, you know, human biology is going to still play a role here at the root of all things. And so, like, yes, Japan and India and China, like eventually they're all going to have huge demographic problems. The question becomes, like, can those self-propped system survive under technological society? So far we're not, I'm not seeing a very positive answer out of any Eastern. Asian country, but I mean, at the same time, right? Like, you also lose what gave you the initial

advantage or the initial identity or the initial, you know, ways and means of that system even working from happening once you diversify. I mean, how effective is any sort of like, we were talking about democracy earlier. Like, how effective is democracy the more you diversify it? Like, every study that has ever been done illustrates that no diversity decreases civic engagement, in public trust, people become more shut-ins. They don't trust people. And they become more dependent on like law and order if it's even there, which evolves in anarcho tyranny.

Like, you know, once you diversify something, you kill the self-prop system from propagating. Right. But it also seems like if you're in charge and you do that, there's no place for anyone to run other than to you for solutions. So you're actually in some way, at least temporarily, self-propagating your existence within that system. Yeah, you are. And I mean, we're seeing that right now inside the U.S., right?

As we're recording, right, you have that Title 42 stuff and the El Paso and all borders, just absolute disaster. And, like, that's cool if you're in charge in Washington, you can bean count and sort of play with this. But, you know, again, it goes back to what Kaczynski talked about earlier. Like, you know, you're, you punish yourself in the long term because you're only thinking about short-term political gain. All right. Let's move on. Yeah. Notice that the crucial factor here is the available of rapid worldwide transportation and communication as a consequence of which there exists global self-propped systems.

There is another way of seeing that this situation will lead to the radical disruption of the world system. students of industrial accidents know that a system is most likely to suffer a catastrophic breakdown when, one, the system is highly complex, meaning that small disruptions can produce unpredictable consequences, and two, tightly linked, meaning that a breakdown in one part of the system spreads quickly to other parts. The world system has been highly complex for a long time. The new factor is that of rapid worldwide transportation and communication, as a result of which the world system and all global self-propped systems are now tightly linked. Until relatively recently, self-propped systems were local phenomena,

hence the destructive effects of their competition also, hence the destructive effects of their competition also were usually locally. We're usually local. Today, because global self-propped worldwide, because they are tightly linked, because the world system as a whole is tightly linked, and because technology provides global self-propped systems with colossal power, global disaster sooner or later is a near certainty.

And obvious. Yeah, this just interlinks with like Tainer and Varylio again, right? Like complex societies do have ways and means in which they can collapse, but that also means that the faster you accelerate or grow or self-propagate, the likelihood that those effects will be global. and their destruction? An obvious answer to the foregoing arguments will be to assert that destructive competition

among global self-prop systems isn't inevitable. A single global self-prop system might succeed in eliminating all of its competitors and thereafter dominate the world alone, or because global self-prop systems would be relatively few in number, they might come to an agreement among themselves

whereby they would refrain from all dangerous or destructive forms of competition. However, while it is easy to talk about such an agreement, it is vastly more difficult to actually concede to conclude one and enforce it. Just look, the world's leading powers today have not been able to agree on the elimination of war or of nuclear weapons or on the limitation of emissions of carbon dioxide. But let's be optimistic and assume that the world has come under the domination of a single unified system, which may consist of a single global self-prop system victorious over all its rivals,

and may be a composite of several global self-propped systems that have bound themselves together through an agreement that eliminates all destructive competition among them. The resulting world peace will be unstable for three separate reasons. First, the world system will be highly complex and tightly linked. Second, prior to the arrival of world peace and for the sake of their own survival and propagation, the self-prop subsystems of a given global self-prop system, their super system, will have put aside, or at least moderated, their mutual conflicts in order to present a united front against any immediate external threats or challenges to the super system,

which are also threats or challenges to themselves. In fact, the super system would never have. been successful enough to become a global self-prop system if competition between its most powerful self-prop subsystems had not been moderated. I mean, had not been moderated. So, I mean, in this instance, they are moderated. Rules of the economy, international law, United Nations. I'm just, I'm trying to think where that might be from or where that might come from in this

respect, right? Like, you know, in his mind, his optimistic assumption, world peace, like a single unified system. So I'm thinking like, okay, total global homo victory. Well, how do you accomplish that? Well, if it requires moderation from other power competitions, then, you know, global infrastructure like the WTO, UN would be the ways to do it. And I mean, the UN is already a political battlefield as it is where nations vie for influence in like general assembly boats and stuff. And I've always cited the, like, when the war started, like, I just told people, like, look at the United Nations vote that condemns Russia. Like, look at, like, the 35 or so abstentions. And that's when you can really see where the power play is being held here. So, yeah, I mean,

global self-propped systems will be interesting, especially, like, what subsystems are we dealing with? What are they being moderated with? And, I mean, you're going to have to do it, right? lest we somehow with the highly complex tightly linked world system unless everyone in China nowadays is like a furry appreciator or something right

like I don't know how you could make one total leveling world system I don't think can happen you'd still be reliant on global subsystems that you formerly defeated but once a global self-prop system has eliminated its competitors or has entered into an agreement

that frees it from dangerous competition from other global self-propped systems, there will no longer be an immediate external threat to induce unity or a moderation of conflict among the self-propped systems. In view of Proposition 2, which tells us that self-prop systems will compete with little regard for long-term consequences, unrestrained and therefore destructive competition will break out among the most powerful sub-prop subsystems of the global self-prop system in question. This argument, of course, assumes that the most powerful sub-prop systems will be intelligent enough to distinguish between a situation in which their super system is subject to an immediate

external threat and a situation in which their super system is not subject to an immediate external threat. The assumption, however, seems highly probable. Benjamin Franklin pointed out that the Great Affairs of the War, the war's revolutions, etc., or the war's revolutions, and are carried out on and affected by parties. Each of the parties, according to Franklin, is pursuing its own collective advantage. But as soon as a party has gained its general point and therefore presumably no longer faces immediate conflict with an external adversary, each member becomes intent upon his particular

interests which thwarting others breaks that party into divisions and occasions confusion. I mean, you see this any time that there's a coup or a successful business organization being made. You know, there's a fight with the founders and so on and so forth. I mean, this is the kind of factionalism that was concerning towards George Washington and so on. I mean, you know, lest we encounter, you know, immediate external existential threats, like asteroids or whatever. Like, it's not, it's not like, you know, we're going to achieve some kind of unifying world system.

I mean, there's going to be people at the top that fight for each other. We still see this with inter-elite fighting in America. So, yeah, so far dead on. Franklin's statement doubtless represents somewhat of an oversimplification. But history does generally confirm that when large human groups are not held together by an immediate external challenge, they tend strongly to break up. into factions that compete with one another, regardless of long-term consequences. What we are arguing here is that this does not apply only to human groups, but expresses a

tendency of self-propagating systems in general as they develop under the influence of natural selection. Thus, the tendency is independent of any flaws of character peculiar to human beings, and the tendency will persist even if humans are cured of their purported defects or are replaced by intelligent machines. Let's nevertheless assume that the most powerful self-prop subsystems of global self-prop systems will not begin to compete destructively when the external challenges to their super system have been removed. There is still a third reason why the kind of world peace described above will be unstable.

By Proposition 1, within the new peaceful world system, new self-prop systems will arise that under the influence of natural selection will evolve increasingly, subtle and sophisticated ways of evading recognition, or once they are recognized, evading suppression by the dominant global self-prop system. By the same process that led to the evolution of self-prop systems in the first place, new self-prop systems of greater and greater power will develop until some are powerful enough to challenge the existing global self-prop systems, whereupon destructive competition on a global scale will resume.

So a mix of like evolutionary biology, like eventually you're going to adapt ways and means to not be caught by predators. And even if you do, right? And I mean, humans do this already. Like we negotiate, we trade, we find other means and alternatives to fighting. And now, you know,

that's how you build up power or alliances. Like this is, it's, he's coming to these conclusions as if it's like, and this is just from what my own reading and my own understanding of things. Like, he's coming to this with, like, a bizarre, like, intersection of offensive realism and international relations theory and, like, evolutionary biology. And it's just very interesting to read. There's always going to be those sentences, like we said at the beginning,

that are going to make you think, oh, fuck. For the sake of clarity, we have described the process in simplified form, as if a world system relatively free of dangerous competition would first be established and afterward would be undone by new self-prop systems that would arise. But it's more likely that the new self-prop systems will be arising all along to challenge the existing global self-prop systems and will prevent the hypothesized world peace from ever being there in the first place. In fact, we can see that happening before our eyes.

The most crudely obvious of the relatively new self-prop systems are those that challenge law and order head-on, such as terrorist networks, drug cartels, and hacker groups. Anonymous and now defunct Lulzek. Such self-prop systems not only can disrupt the normal course of political life as drug cartels have done in Mexico and terrorists have done in the United States, they even have the potential to take control of important nations as drug cartels argue. have come close to doing in Kenya. A subordinate system that a government creates for its own protection, its military establishment, can turn into a self-prop system in its own and become dominant over the government, either replacing it through a military coup or exercising effective power behind the scenes while allowing the government to retain the appearance of full sovereignty.

funny like I mean power in these health prop systems like they'll find threats and infiltrator use it and I mean anonymous nowadays really does seem nothing more right than like some sort of fed up yeah so yeah I mean these things can be done

and I mean we see this with Mexico right like how much of American guns and dollars have gone south of the border to propagate a system that keeps the Mexican government relatively weak yeah yeah and it's it seems to be by design.

I mean, does the United States or the people who, you know, really run the United States want their partner to the North or the partner to the North or their partner to the South to be as strong as they are? Yeah. Obviously that's. Yeah. Obviously they don't want that. Yeah.

I remember Ann Coulter, like after 9-11, they were saying that Canada was going to join in the fight. And she's like, Canada doesn't even need an army. Do you think we'd allow, you know, we'd allow anything to happen to Canada? All right. All right. Probably more significant at the present time are emerging self-propped systems that use entirely legal methods. New corporations are continually being formed. Some grow powerfully enough to challenge older corporations and gain covert political power.

and those that tried to keep their use of illegal methods to a minimum, as in the case of the movement to recently overthrow Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. Legal self-prop systems are especially important to those parts of the world where democracy is firmly established, because democracy gives new groups the opportunity to compete for and possibly win power by legal means. Two competing entirely legal self-prop systems that have arisen in the U.S. during the last several decades are the politically correct left and the dogmatic right, not to be confused with the liberals and conservatives of earlier times in America.

This essay is not the place to speculate about the outcome of the struggle between these two forces. Suffice it to say that in the long run, their bitter conflict may do more to prevent the establishment of a lastingly peaceful world order than all the bombs of al-Qaeda and all the murders of the Mexican drug gangs. Well, Ted, he's optimistic. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, well, Ted, we know who won that. Yeah, we know who won that one.

Some people may imagine that it would be possible to design and construct a world system in such a way that the foregoing processes, processes leading to destructive competition would not occur. But there are several reasons why such a project could never be carried out in practice. Here we mention only one of the reasons, the extreme complexity that the world system would necessarily have and the impossibility of predicting, especially at long term, the behavior of complex systems. It will be objected that a mammal or other complex biological organism is a self-propped system

that is composite of millions of other self-propped systems, namely the cells of its own body, yet unless and until the animal cancer, no destructive competition arises among cells or groups of cells within the animal's body. Instead, all the cells loyally serve the interests of the animal as a whole. Moreover, no external threat to the animal is necessary to keep the cell faithful to their duty. There is, it will be argued, no reason why the world system could not be as well organized as the body of a mammal, so that no destructive competition would arise among its self-propped systems. I'm very interested to hear his answer or his argument for that. But the body of a mammal is a product of hundreds of millions of years of evolution through natural selection.

That means that it has been created through trial and error process involving many millions of successive trials. If we suppose the duration of a generation to be a period of time, Delta, those members of of the first generation that contributed to the second generation by producing offspring were only those that passed the test of selection over time delta. Those lineages that survived to the third generation were only those that were passed that passed the time of selection over time to delta. Those lineages that survived to the fourth generation were only those that passed the test of selection over time three delta and so forth.

Those lineages that survived to the nth generation were only those that passed the test of selection over the time interval and to the one delta, as well as the test of selection over every shorter time interval. Though the foregoing explanation is grossly simplified, it shows that in order to have survived up to the present, a lineage of organisms has to have passed the test of selection. many millions of times and over all time intervals, short, medium, and long. To put it another way, the lineage of organisms has had to pass through a series of many millions of filters, each of which has allowed the passage only of those lineage that were fittest in the Darwinian sense to survive over time intervals of widely varying length. It is only through this process that the body of a mammal has evolved, with its incredibly complex and subtle mechanisms that promote the survival of the animal's

lineages at short, medium, and long term. These mechanisms include those that prevent destructive competition between cells or groups of cells within the animal's body. But once self-propped systems have attained global scale, certain crucial differences emerge that make the selection process highly inefficient. Yeah, this is the interesting part, right? Like, there are global self-prop systems out there. We see this in blocks.

We see this in superpowers. But these are still relatively new, right? And even if we got one major unified system that he's talked about earlier, you know, how is that iterated? How has that succeeded? And how do you keep everyone from not rebelling against it? Yeah. It's when you look at the average length of an empire, you have to ask yourself when you compare it to the evolution of a mammal as he's, if it only lasts three or four, you know, two or three hundred years or at the most 600 years where you, in the 600th year, you're only seeing shadows of what was started. Yeah.

How fit of a system is that? And would the system be fitter if it was smaller in size? Or, you know, once you become an empire, is that the problem, is the problem that you're, with the growth of an empire, you're allowing more cancer cells to come in. And it does raise a lot of questions. Well, that's also like the argument that why we see so much of the West have like an epidemic of autoimmune disorders, right?

It's as though like we live in cleaner environments. We live in a more highly processed enriched thing, like the rise of like gluten allergies because our processed bread has like hundreds, if not thousands of times more gluten particulates inside than it ever did before with bread in the past. So I mean, you know, that's the other thing too is like, well, why wouldn't you have cancerous cells or things that are deliberately bad for you that would kill the empire? And I mean, like, that's where you get the traditional moral argument that, like, once a nation loses its character, loses that moral drive, then it dies, you know. And I think you see that with Spangler, you see that with tainter, you see that with numerous others and commentaries about Rome, that, hey, once you give up the ghost on morality, religion, tradition, even in like an evolutionary psych thing, a lot of people said that the earliest religions were meant to promote pro-social behavior and behaviors that were hygienic. So, I mean, in this respect, right, like, I don't know how you do that with a global system. like, yeah, we're going to rule all over the world, but we're going to let, like, the highly clean, immaculate Silicon Valley people also,

you know, live in the same places with, like, you know, there's feces all over the street. Like, those things aren't compatible, like the not long term. All right. So I think I'm going to read this again. But once soft prop systems have obtained global scale, certain crucial differences emerge that make the selection process highly inefficient. I don't remember if I'd read that.

Yeah, yeah, no worries. First, at each trial in the same, the process of trial and era that is evolution through natural selection, there are two few individuals from among which to select the fittest. In a biological species, these ordinarily are, at the least, several million individuals from among which the fittest in each generation are selected by their ability to survive and reproduce. Self-prop systems sufficiently big and powerful to be plausible contenders for global dominance will probably number in the dozens or possibly in the hundreds, they will, they certainly will not number in the millions.

Second, in the absence of rapid worldwide transportation and communication, the breakdown of the destructive action of a small group self-propped system has only local repercussions. But where rapid worldwide transportation and communication have led to the emergence of global self-prop systems, the breakdown of the destructive action of anyone's such system shakes the entire world system. Consequently, in the process of the trial and error that is evolution through natural selection, it is highly probable that after only a relatively small number of trials resulting in errors, the world system will break down or be so severely disrupted that none of the world's larger or more complex self-propped systems will be able to survive, see Proposition

3. Thus, for such self-prop systems, the trial and error process comes to an end. Evolution through natural selection cannot continue long enough to create global self-propped systems possessing the subtle and sophisticated mechanisms that prevent destructive internal competition without complex biological organisms. So, yeah, so the gene pool of these systems are so small that it won't succeed in creating a fit unifying global superstructure. Very, I mean, a clear cut right there. If the gene pool isn't big enough, you wouldn't breed or you fall apart and die.

And I think this is why when you, what website are we on reading this from the anarchist library? The anarchist library. Yeah. And I think the anarchist argument would be, well, if this is never going to work, why would we, why will we keep trying? I will go on. She got your question, right? There's your black pill.

Meanwhile, fierce competition among global self-propped systems will have led to such drastic and rapid alterations in the Earth's climate, the composition of its atmosphere, the chemistry of its oceans, and so forth that among biological species, none will be left alive except maybe some of the simplest organisms. certainly bacteria, algae, and the like that are capable of surviving under extreme conditions. The theory we've outlined here provides a plausible explanation for the so-called Fermi paradox. It is believed that there should be numerous planets on which technological advances civilizations have evolved and which are not so remote from us that we could not by this time have detected the

radio transmissions of those civilizations. The Fermi paradox consists in the fact that our astronomers have never been able to detect any radio signals that seem to have originated from an intelligent extraterrestrial source. According to Ray Kurzweil, one common explanation of the Fermi paradox is that a civilization may obliterate itself once it reaches radio capability. The explanation might be acceptable if we were talking about only a few such civilizations, but if such civilization, if such civilization, have been numerous, it is not credible to believe that every one of them destroyed itself. Kurzweil would be right if the self-destruction of a civilization were merely a matter of chance, but there is nothing implausible about the foregoing explanation of the Fermi paradox. If there is a process common to all technologically advanced civilizations,

that consistently leads them to self-destruction. In this essay, we have argued that there is such a process. It's been a good job making that argument. Yeah, part two is basically like six paragraphs. Yeah, we can just basically the wrap up. Yeah, we can run right through it. Our discussion of self-propagating systems merely describes in general and abstract terms what we see going on all around us in concrete form. Organizations, movements, ideologies are locked in an unremitting struggle for power.

Those that fail to compete successfully are eliminated or subjugated. The struggle is almost exclusively. for power in the short term, the competitors pay scant attention even to their own long-term survival, let alone the welfare of the human race or of the biosphere. That's why nuclear weapons have not been banned. Emissions of carbon dioxide have not been reduced to a safe level. The Earth's resources are being exploited in an utterly reckless rate, and no limitation has been placed on the development of powerful but dangerous technologies. The purpose of describing the process in general in abstract terms, as we've done here,

is to show that what is happening to our world is not accidental. It is not the result of some chance conjunction of historical circumstances or of some flaw of character peculiar to human beings. Given the nature of self-propagating systems, in general, the destructive process that we see today is made inevitable by a combination of two factors. the colossal power of modern technology and the availability of rapid transportation and communication between any two parts of the world. Recognition of this may help us to avoid wasting time on naive efforts to solve all our current problems. For example, on efforts to teach people to conserve energy and resources, such efforts accomplish nothing whatsoever.

Excuse me. It seems amazing that those who advocate energy, conservation haven't noticed what happens. As soon as some energy is freed up by conservation, the technological world system gobbles it up and demands more. No matter how much energy is provided, the system always expands rapidly until it is using all available energy and then it demands still more. The same is true of other resources. The technological world system infallibly expands until it reaches a limit imposed by an insufficiency of resources and then it tries to push beyond that limit regardless of consequences.

Reminds me very much of why Mearsheimer famously titled his book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, because nations will push for more influence, insufficient of political capital or military will to do so, and that's how you lead to Great Power Conflict, and it's a tragedy because it's been echoed throughout all of civilized history, and he's making this point just on a nature of how our world system operates. This is explained by the theory of self-propagating systems. Those organizations or other self-propped systems that least allow respect for environment to interfere with their pursuit of power here and now tend to acquire more power than those

that limit their pursuit of power from concern about what will happen to our environment 50 years from now or even 10 years, Proposition 2. Thus, through a process of natural selection, the world comes to be dominated by organizations that make maximum use of all available resources to augment their own power without regard to long-term consequences. Environmental do-goaters may answer that if the public had been persuaded to take environmental concerns seriously, it will be disadvantageous in terms of natural selection for an organization to abuse the environment. because citizens can offer resistance to environmentally reckless organizations. For example, people might refuse to buy products manufactured by companies that are environmentally destructive. However, human behavior and human attitudes can be manipulated. Environmental damage can be shielded up to a point from public scrutiny with the help of public

relations firms. A corporation can persuade people that it is environmentally responsible. advertising and marketing techniques can give people such an itch to possess a corporation's products that few individuals will refuse to buy it, that few individuals were refused to buy them from concern for the environment. Computer games, electronic social networking, and other mechanisms of escape keep people absorbed in hedonistic pursuits so that they don't have time for environmental worries. It's that brand irony of one of the Netflix founders being related to, Bernays. Yeah, I don't think there's irony there. Probably not, but I mean, the sake of this tragedy that he's outlying here, yeah. More importantly, people are made to see themselves as utterly dependent on the products and services provided by the corporations.

Because people have to earn money to buy the products and services on which they are dependent, they need jobs. Economic growth is necessary for the creation of jobs, therefore people accept environmental damage when it is portrayed as a price that must be paid for economic growth. Nationalism, too, is brought into play by both corporations and by governments. Citizens are made to feel that outside forces are threatening. The Chinese will get ahead of us if we don't increase our rate of economic growth. Al-Qaeda will blow us up if we don't improve our technology and our weaponry fast enough. Just like what we talked about earlier with AI, arms races.

There you go. These are some of the tools that organizations use to counter environmentalist efforts to arouse public concern. Similar tools can help to blunt other forms of resistance to the organization's pursuit of power. The organizations that are most successful in blunting public resistance to their pursuit or power tend to increase their power more rapidly than organizations that are less successful in blunting public resistance to their power-seeking activities, whatever the degree of environmental damage involved. because such organizations have great wealth at their disposal, environmentalists do not have the resources to compete with them in the propaganda war. This is the reason, or an important part of the reason, why attempts to teach people to be environmentally responsible

have done so little to slow the destruction of our environment. And again, note well, the process we've described is not contingent on an accidental set of circumstances or on any defect in human character. Given the availability of advanced technology, the process of inevitable, of inevitability accompanies the action of natural selection upon self-propagating systems. There we go. It's tough to read Ted because his arguments are clear and they're logical. And there's an incredible amount of truth in them.

Yeah. If you want your black pill, go read Ted Kaczynski, right, in this respect. And, you know, and he's highlighting almost like a cold, hard evolutionary fact, because mankind has been assisted and then inculcated and as a part of this environment for 400 years of industrial revolution, that that is how we operate. It's how we, you know, live in the world. And if we were to break wildly from that or resist against it, you know, the wealth that has been accrued by the powers that be really wants you to stay on track. So you're dependent on them. And that becomes the nature of political realism is how do you accrue power, ascertain it, and, you know, centralize it and grow it. And that growth is great for the short term. And democracy is like the epitome of this, right? Like we've got such a high time preference re-elections over two years.

Most of politicians phone calls are with donors. There's no long-term care about this because every aspect of environmentalism is some form of just more globalism and not actual respects to the environment. And that's why you get autistic child celebrities, you know, telling you to, you know, how dare you? And my life's been ruined because of you while, you know, most of the world's plastic polluters are. are by developing economies that are trying to catch up and keep up with it. And their own form of self-propagating systems, this is why China and India are the world's largest polluters. And the West has actually decreased as it's continued to evolve technologically.

But, you know, he outlines very succinctly what kind of world we're living in and that, you know, the propaganda machine is going to be ahead of you because you do not have a billion dollars and you are not like the great, you know, the grandson or whatever descendant of Eddie Bernays. I mean, I know as of like four or five years ago, the greatest polluter on the planet was the U.S. military. And how do you argue, oh, let's reduce the military? Yeah. You immediately get from both sides, from every side.

So what do you want us to do? The burn pits that they do, everything from bombs, they drop. I mean, basically everything. Anyone who I've talked to veterans and just the stuff that they've seen, the stuff that had been thrown overboard into the ocean off of ships. And what do you do? Yeah, is when you're living for the moment, you're when that government basically demands, especially Democratic government demands high time preference.

Yeah. So what do you do? Hoppet talked about it in democracy, the god that failed. At least if you have a monarchy, in most cases, you had a king that wanted to preserve something, conserve something to hand down to their progeny. We don't have that anymore. We have people who get elected for two years and they go in there and they try and loot as much as possible. Yeah.

I mean, that's the point that even Nick Land was writing about in the dark enlightenment. It's just like, I don't know if I'm ever going. to be in power again so i might as well loot the treasury for more power and you know screwed the consequences and we see that now and i mean like i said earlier like this is the nice the weird and really blackpilling intersection of sort of social and evolutionary psychology with like political realism especially in international relations because if you're a high time preference empire preserving institution that happens to be a democracy then any long term sociological or biological disaster be damned because right now, I don't know how much power I have before the

Chinese launch a surprise attack or something, right? Like, those are the things that you have to keep in mind. And if you are capable of low time preference, long-term planning, you camouflage yourself, and you do well to exert political influence wherever you can, like certain countries do, you know, right now. Yeah, this really is, Ted really is the ultimate black pill because you know, we both know people who are completely black-pilled about American politics. Yeah. And this is global. This is existence.

It's like, how do you, what do you do at this point? You know, it's like, I've, I mean, this may not be the greatest observation. But to me, when you see people, you know, I know people myself who just left the city and gone to smaller town and now I'm going to an even smaller town. And in so doing, I'm basically using a modified form of Ted, a modified form of what Ted advocates for is to just go back, get simpler, use less, and get away from technology, basically. You know, and, yeah, it's, that's the hard part about doing

about talking about Ted is is there is no what's the hope what's the answer to all this yeah there's not a lot of you know platitudes or polite dispensations when it comes to reading Ted it's more

of this is the cold hard analysis that I've outlined and you're one man remember that and that it seems hopeless right and it you know this also feels like something that you should read with man and techniques by Spangler, because he kind of also highlights this.

It's like it's in mankind's nature to, you know, resist against it. And that fight is hopeless, but mankind is going to fight it out till the bitter end and coward. You know, optimism is cowardice. So acknowledge and be thoroughbred and do what you can do right in the midst of this because mankind will continue to evolve alongside its machines, its techniques as a tools for survival. and if that means, you know, a bunch of schizophrenic, you know, attention spam-addled, you know, zoomers that are running the government now rely on like chat GPT to do things. Then like we are, you know, I wouldn't be optimistic either.

Yeah, I don't. He says in Man and Technics, he says optimism is cowardice. Doesn't he also say ideology is weakness or ideology is cowardice? He makes a point about ideology. remember it correctly. We just covered this on my patron book club, but that, you know, those are also, you know, social techniques that help govern us for survival or long and motivates people to do things in a certain way. Like, it's how we've evolved. So it'd be very interesting to read this side by side with man and techniques. I might

do that very soon, actually, reread it again because, I mean, like what, like I said, like when I picked out this one when we were going, I was going through other of Ted's works. I was like, this one is the one worth discussing the most because you see, It reminds me of Greer's bit in Retroopia that you can't force regression because other nations will pursue it regardless, right? Or you can't regress because people like the technological comforts. They've evolved with them. And, you know, the answer, like he says you can't force it. And Ted Kaczynski here is just like, well, you can't force it because it's an inevitability on a global scale and you're why.

guy, you know. It all comes together in this nice, large, horse pill-sized black pill. So brutal. Yeah. Plug what you want to plug and we'll, I know you're busy today. Oh, yeah, no, porous. Well, thanks again, Pete, for having me on. You can find me on YouTube, telegram, Twitter, Substack Odyssey is The Prudentialist. All of my links can be found at find my friends.net slash the Prudentialist. I cover politics, culture, and primarily international relations with a dose of fishing in between. And as always, it's great to talk Ted Kaczynski with you. Thanks, Prude. Appreciate it. No problem.