TrueLife - Social Engineering the Devolution of America: Power, Media & the Mind Game

Episode Date: July 29, 2020

One on One Video Call W/George https://tidycal.com/georgepmonty/60-minute-meetingSupport the show:https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US🚨🚨Curious about the future of psychedelics? Imagine if Alan Watts started a secret society with Ram Dass and Hunter S. Thompson… now open the door. Use Promocode TRUELIFE for Get 25% off monthly or 30% off the annual plan For the first yearhttps://www.district216.com/Technocracy & it’s unintended consequences.....excerpts & insights from the booksconnectography - KhannaTechnological slavery - Ted KaczinskiTranscript:Speaker 0 (0s): Good morning. All my friends, Hey guys, doing that there. I missed you yesterday. I was thinking about you. I was like, I wonder what everybody's doing. I wonder if they miss me cause you know what? Dammit, I miss you guys. I miss you guys, man. But I have a little time to think yesterday. And I've been going down the deep dark rabbit hole, the deep, the rabbit hole of technology rising in the pathway of supply chains and mapping the future of global civilization. And I've been getting into that book, Parag, Conner, and I've been comparing and contrasting it with Patrick Wood. And I came up with a little bit of analysis and I just want to run it by you guys here and to let you know what I think, I think that what you're seeing right now is the inevitable clash of civilizations between the United States and China. It's a clash of cultures. It's a clash of ideas. It's a clash of governing. It's a clash of leadership styles. I think there's something called the acidities trap. And that is when a young power is coming up and will soon take the place of the older power, much like the U S did to Britain. And if you go back in history, you can look that up and check it out. So I know most people can't see this, but you can listen to it. So I will work hard and try to describe exactly the maps that I saw so that I can paint you a mental picture of them. Hopefully there'll be clear if you close your eyes to think of a map of China for all my friends in Europe, and this will be way easier for you than my friends in America. Alright. That means to all my friends in America, but to step your game up, but to start checking out a globe, I'm just playing. I can talk a little shit to you guys, cause I love you. Okay. So close your eyes. Think of China and then think about the coast of China and then draw with your finger. A small circle around all the little cities. Well, they're not so little, but all the cities along the coastline of China, they're like their own entities. The cities in China, that economic model is a lot like the States in the United States, except they're based on the city model. That would mean that the governor of that city is a lot like the president has a lot more authority and is governed by looser laws. As long as you achieve the goal that is set forth by the governing body of the nation, you're free to utilize whatever methods you need to use in order to accomplish that goal. Now close your eyes and think of the United States. You can think of all the different States and all the lines that are crossed and Speaker 1 (3m 32s): States are a lot larger than cities, especially Speaker 0 (3m 40s): In the United States because the United States is so vast and so big. There are some States that are not economic powerhouses. There are some States that in fact, don't provide a whole lot of economic resources to the whole. And on the flip side, there are some States that are like the seventh largest economy in the world. But what's important to think about is how each country has divided up the authority in the U S we have the president congresses, but each state is its own entity in China. They have the mega city model. And I'm going to argue that the mega city model is in fact, the preferred method for technocratic government and that you're seeing something like that happen in the United States. I wrote a little bit on this subject. I'd like to read that to you now. I think what you're going to see in the U S is like a devolution from nation to Federation, to mega city economic model. For some time, the politicians wall street and media has spoken about a potential financial crisis. We know that the trade war between the U S and China is quickly escalating. I often think that if history has a way of not necessarily repeating, but rhyming that the linguistic pathway of a trade war, currency, war, and world war may be on the horizon for the last few decades. The term globalization was thought to be the answer to our planet's most pressing issues. The social engineer's sought to structure our planet like a giant corporation. One in which the top 1% could whipsaw the labor of third world nations against one another forever. Cutting the cost while increasing productivity, a diverse group of economic minded executives from all countries found themselves cloaked in the Gildan golden robes of greed, a bonded brotherhood who could not conceive that their demise was built into the very foundation on which they stood. Allow me to further explain some of the maps that I had previously talked about and give my opinion on the current economic crisis. In the first image, that's the one we spoke about China and the city model does efficient and that a central planning authority can build roads, rails, ports, and harbors, regardless of what the population says or does the central government can come and kick everybody out and say, we're building something here. I don't care how long your family has been here. I don't care what your ties are. This is the most efficient spot for this port and we're building it. So beat it. Also, I think it's important to note right here that the Chinese model, while it still has trappings of communist behavior, it is in fact, a full blown technocracy. This allows for rapid growth ever increasing production rates consumption, and the rule by science, better known as technocracy Here in America. As we began to hear what Ross Perot described as a giant sucking sound, we soon were able to see the emptiness in the soul of the United States of America. Big business saw a rapid reduction in costs and increase in profits. Politicians watched and Slack jot ecstasy at the thought of wielding such authority over their citizens. Like most lustful relationships. It didn't take long to realize this relationship was unsustainable. China was like a sultry seductive succubus sneaking off in the middle of the night to satiate her carnal desires and who could blame her, the bellicose big bellied impotence of wall street, fat cats who claim the ability to have infinite stamina. We're lucky to pull the gun from the holster room, but I was shooting their foot Speaker 1 (7m 60s): Right here. Speaker 0 (8m 3s): That's where we begin to see the breakup. It wasn't one of <inaudible> books that I read his story about Hillary Clinton. He was at a cocktail party where he had a few moments to speak with the former first lady as the conversation was wrapping up. He asked the question to her, why is it that so many men in business and politics have only the most vile things to say about you? Hillary Clinton's answer was, I think it's because I remind all of them of their first wife. I thought that was hilarious, but that is exactly how big business and politicians are beginning to see our current relationship with China. ...

Darkness struck, a gut-punched theft, Sun ripped away, her health bereft. I roar at the void. This ain't just fate, a cosmic scam I spit my hate. The games rigged tight, shadows deal, blood on their hands, I'll never kneel. Yet in the rage, a crack ignites, occulted sparks cut through the nights. The scars my key, hermetic and stark. To see, to rise, I hunt in the dark, fumbling, fear. through ruins maze, lights my war cry, born from the blaze.

The poem is Angels with Rifles. The track, I Am Sorrow, I Am Lust by Codex Seraphini. Check out the entire song at the end of the cast. Good morning, all my friends. How you guys doing out there? I missed you yesterday. I was thinking about you. I was like, I wonder what everybody's doing. I wonder if they miss me.

me because you know what damn it i miss you guys i miss you guys man but i had a little time to think yesterday and i've been going down the deep dark rabbit hole the the the rabbit hole of technology rising and the pathway of supply chains and mapping the future of global civilization and i've been getting into that book paragana and i've been comparing and contrasting it with Patrick Wood. And I came up with a little bit of analysis, and I just want to run it by you guys here and to let you know what I think.

I think that what you're seeing right now is the inevitable clash of civilizations between the United States and China. It's a clash of cultures. It's a clash of ideas. It's a clash of governing. It's a class. of leadership styles.

I think there's something called the Thucydides trap, and that is when a young power is coming up and will soon take the place of the older power, much like the U.S. did to Britain. And if you go back in history, you can look that up and check it out. So I know most people can't see this, but you can listen to it.

So I will work hard and try to describe exactly the maps that I saw so that I can paint you a mental picture of them. Hopefully they'll be clear. If you close your eyes, think of a map of China. For all my friends in Europe, this will be way easier for you

than my friends in America. All right? That means to all my friends in America, you better step your game up. Better start checking out a globe. Ha ha! I'm just playing. I can talk a little shit to you guys

because I love you. Okay, so close your eyes. think of China and then think about the coast of China and then draw with your finger a small circle around all the little cities well they're not so little but all the cities along the coastline of China they're like their own entities the cities in China that economic model is a lot like the states in the United States except they're based on the city model that would mean that the governor of that city is a lot like the president has a lot more authority and is governed by looser laws. As long as you achieve the goal that is set forth by the governing body of the

nation, you're free to utilize whatever methods you need to use in order to accomplish that goal. Now close your eyes and think of the United States. You can think of all. You can think of all the different states and all the lines that are crossed and states are a lot larger than cities especially in the united states because the united states is so vast and so big there are some states that are not economic powerhouses there are some states that in fact don't provide a whole lot of economic resources to the whole and on the flip side there are some states that are like the seventh largest economy in the world. But what's important to think about is how each country has divided up the authority.

In the U.S., we have the president, congresses, but each state is its own entity. In China, they have the mega city model. And I'm going to argue that the mega city model is in fact the preferred method for technocratic government. and that you're seeing something like that happen in the United States. I wrote a little bit on this subject, and I'd like to read that to you now. I think what you're going to see in the U.S. is like a devolution, from nation to federation to mega city economic model. For some time, the politicians, Wall Street, and media

has spoken about a potential financial crisis. We know that the trade war between the U.S. and China is quickly, escalating. I often think that if history has a way of not necessarily repeating, but rhyming, that the linguistic pathway of trade war, currency war, and world war may be on the horizon. For the last few decades, the term globalization was thought to be the answer to our planet's most pressing issues. The social engineers sought to structure our planet like a giant corporation, one in which the top 1% could whipsaw the labor of third world nations against one another

forever cutting the cost while increasing productivity. A diverse group of economic-minded executives from all countries found themselves cloaked in the gilded golden robes of greed, a bonded brotherhood who could not conceive that their demise was built into the very foundation on which they stood. Allow me to for,

further explain some of the maps that I had previously talked about and give my opinion on the current economic crisis. In the first image, that's the one we spoke about, China and the city model, it is efficient in that a central planning authority can build roads, rails, ports, and harbors, regardless of what the population says or does. The central government can come and kick everybody out and say, we're building something here. I don't care how long your family's been here. I don't care what your ties are. This is the most efficient spot for this port and we're building it. So beat it. Also, I think it's important to note right here that the Chinese model, while it still has trappings of communist behavior, it is in fact a full-blown

technocracy. This allows for rapid growth, ever-increasing production rates, consumption, and the rule by science, better known as technocracy. Here in America, as we began to hear what Ross Perrault described as a giant sucking sound, we soon were able to see the emptiness in the soul of the United States of America. Big business saw rapid reduction in cost and increase in profits. Politicians watched in slack-jawed ecstasy at the thought of wielding such authority over their citizens. Like most lustful relationships, it didn't take long to realize this relationship was unsustainable. China was like a sultry, seductive succubus, sneaking off in the middle of the night to satiate her carnal desires. And who could blame her? The bellicose big-bellied impotence of Wall

Street fat cats who claimed the ability to have infinite stamina were lucky to pull the gun from the holster without shooting their foot. That's where we begin to see the breakup. It was in one of Gore-Vidal's books that I read a story about Hillary Clinton. He was at a cocktail party where he had a few moments to speak with the former first lady. As the conversation was wrapping up, he asked the question to her. Why is it that so many men in business and politics have only the most vile things to say about you? Hillary Clinton's answer was, I think it's because I remind all of them of their first wife. I thought that was hilarious.

But that is exactly how big business and politicians are beginning to see our current relationship with China. It's going to be a messy divorce. It's not going to be pretty. And in fact, I would argue that you can already see the children fighting, being used as leverage. Just like in all horrible divorces, the children are used to cause harm to the mother and the father. They're used as some sort of a divisive wedge to break up the, they're wheeled. it as an instrument of hate against the other person.

Already you can see the children fighting being used as leverage, be it in Hong Kong against their mother, like the Hong Kong protests being used to destabilize the mainland of China. And equally, the BLM movement in the United States being abused against the father. The same way the student protested in Hong Kong are being used to destabilize China, It is in fact the very same way that the BLM movement is being used as a tool of division to destabilize America. We are going to be divorced and our assets will be split. This brings me to the description of the second map.

This map is what the USA is going to become unless there is some sort of intervention. For those of you just listening, this is a map where the U.S.A. United States is not broken up into states, but in fact, regions, territories. Think of California being one. And then the northwest being another one. The Midwest being another. The southern states compromising of Texas, New Orleans, and Florida being port areas. The east coast from New York to Boston being a financial hub. Think of the United States, not the map that you normally see, but as divided up into five to six territories, a federation, if you will. Under the guise of sustainable development, climate change, and diversity, our country has

been divided, a series of Trojan horses to sneak in the shock troops of despair. Instead of a nation, we will devolve into a federation. Then the transformation to a mega city model will be easily attainable. To understand the city model, think of Singapore. And by that, I mean, think about the geography of where it lies. Think about the geography that's important because that's how supply chains work. To further add to this conversation, I want you to think about in the United States, where are the riots taking place? Throughout the world, where are the riots taking place in your country?

Are they in strategic areas of your country? Are they in port cities? Are they in parts of your country that are the breadbasket? And what I mean by that is where all the food is being farmed. What about COVID? Where is COVID hitting your country? Could you make the case that COVID is hitting the world the hardest in spots that are strategic locations for supply chains?

And if you can make that argument, could you take it one step further and think that these areas are being secured for supply chains? How does COVID match up with the Chinese Belt and Road initiative? In the U.S., there's a lot of states that are being really locked down. I think of California. I think of New York. And these are, in fact, major strategic. areas. And what's happening to those places? Well, right now there's financial calamity. But if you take a few minutes to think about the long-term economic ramifications of these areas

being hit, what does that mean? Well, it means that eventually, if we do have a financial crisis, people are moving out of those places, at least for now. I think that means that you'll be able to a property there. Really cheap. Ports. Especially if you were part of the financial institution. Isn't it interesting that there's been so much financial corruption since COVID? Now, I know I have a lot of listeners in different parts of the world.

And I know that you may not be 100% abreast on what actually is happening. And I don't think anybody truly. truly is. However, let me fill in some people that are not in the U.S. some of the things that thus, some of the things that us in the U.S. have seen as far as economic malfeasance. What we have seen is the biggest transformation of wealth from working people to the richest 1%. We've seen a transfer of wealth

on such a grand scale that it's almost unthinkable. the disregard for the dollar there was recently a government policy that in very vague terms allowed anyone in the USA who could prove they had a business to apply for a loan of up to $2 million that would be given to them without any scrutiny and there was so much fraud that happen. It's also interesting to point out that on that particular stimulus deal that the banks in the United States made $12 billion in processing fees, $12 billion. I would argue that these particular stimulus packages for the people are in fact just bailouts for the corporations. They are in fact ways to try and keep American business afloat so that they cannot be hollowed.

out by foreign entities. Additionally, you could also say that this is the exact transformation that we talked about earlier. This is money being pumped from the very last working Americans, from the very last system, into the new Chinese-style American system. In order for us to have a federation in the United States, there must be devolution. We must break up the analysis. initial 50 states, and where is the money going to come from? Well, the money is going to come from

the transfer of wealth that we just saw. There's going to be what is known as consolidation. And that's why the mom and pop spots are going to be run into the ground. They're not allowed to go to work. They're not allowed to open up. Whereas any company that has over 500 people, well the government doesn't tell them what to do but anything less than 500 the government will tell you hey you guys they're going to make it so that you can't work they're going to make those places go out of business so there's zero competition for the biggest people and when i say biggest people i mean companies like amazon multinational corporations you're going to see the consolidation of small businesses into the big ones you're going to see the consolidation of power into

the city, the mega city model that was made popular by China. And I think it's happening not only in the U.S., but throughout the nation. A good way to help you understand this. It's so hard to see when you're in the situation. You know what I mean by that? Like, if you're in a relationship with somebody, it's difficult, especially if you're really blinded by lust or you're a little bit younger, or you, your judgment is clouded by,

emotion. But all of us have had a friend where you could see their relationship and just know, oh, this is never going to work. But the person in that relationship can't see it. The reason I bring that up is if you want to know what's happening in your country, then tune in to the happenings of another country. Because what we're seeing around the world is the same thing. And it doesn't matter if it's black or white or yellow or red or it doesn't matter how round your eyes are what color your hair is what's happening in our country is happening in your country and i think it's a lot like 1930 i think it's eerily similar and i think you don't have eerily similar results you know when you talk about sustainable development when you talk about agenda 21 when you talk about a more

diverse culture. When you talk about equality and diversity, what you're really talking about is trying to use the scientific method to make the world a better place. And that is the very definition of technocracy. You could make the case that Germany and World War II was a technocracy. In fact, you know what let's let's let's let's let's move down that path for a minute because i would also like to reference are you from is everyone familiar with ted kaczynski that are known as the unabomber i get it i don't i don't agree with everything that that guy did however if you read his book technological slavery he forecasted a lot of what's about to happen and i want to kind of go down that path right now and explain a little bit about why that guy did what he did

and how it pertains to our situation today. And in order to introduce that topic to this conversation, I want to start off with a story. And that story is about a Aborigine tribe in the 60s called the Uriyanet. And the Yur Yonit were an Aborigine tribe somewhere down between New Zealand and Australia on an island, I believe. And they somehow were able to stay uncontacted and have their tribal unit and their tribal way of life intact until the 1960s or 70s. And that's when a social experiment was tried on them that gives us insight into all our behaviors. And what that social experiment was was that,

In the 60s, a group of missionaries went to this island and they handed something out. But before I tell you what they handed out, let me tell you the main technology of the Uri unit of that tribe. The number one technology they had was a stone axe. And it was very difficult to make this stone axe. In fact, only the elder men really knew how to make the stone axe. But the stone axe was, it was symbolic of leadership. It was symbolic of their culture. It was the, it was the leading technology of their time. And thus, whoever could wield that axe, whoever could build that axe held a special position in positions of authority. And it was always the elder men. Now, I hear you, it's, listen, you can make the case it's chauvinistic or whatever, but that's not the point of the story. The point of the story is to talk about the actual, technology and that was the stone axe and that in a weird way because it was their main technology

that's kind of what their society was built upon so now that i filled you in there this tribe of i'm sorry the group of missionaries came down and they thought wouldn't it be nice to bring this tribe who only has stone axes a big shipment a large crate of steel well-made axes and And so they did. They brought down a big chest and they went to the island and they, they landed there. And when they landed, of course, everyone was skeptical of who are these new people bringing gifts, right? The old adage of beware of people bringing gifts. So the elders of the tribe, the men who actually had their stone axes, they kind of stayed away. They didn't want any part to do with these odd looking people that seemed to be invading their island for a short time. but because this group of missionaries were handing out axes you see the elders in the tribe they they had an axe their status was safe and they were safe in their culture because that axe had been a symbol of their culture for so long but you know who didn't have the axes the women and the children if they wanted to use an axe they had to go and and you know ask the elder hey can i use

the axe i needed to do this chore i needed that however when the missionaries brought these axes down the children and the women. Now they had their axes. And in fact, they were better axes. They were better made. They were stronger. And so the missionaries documented over a course of, I think it was three months. What happened? Does you have any guesses what happened? You don't take a guess before I go any further? Come on. You guys know what happened. Well, according to the documents of the missionaries, they were, in a very short time, it fundamentally changed the way that society was working. One of the very first consequences, I'll call them unintended consequences, were that

the amount of work almost stopped. You see, they no longer needed the stone axe. So all the chores, all the, the craft. all that was done relatively quickly and the people in the tribe began spending more time sleeping and it was at that point in time in some of the missionary logs where they began to see uh-oh what do we do here that was like their first inclination of maybe this isn't a good idea because the the stone acts and because the acts were one of the most valuable things in the tribe the new axes became more valuable than the elders. And with it, with it, changed their culture. It changed their culture because

the women or the children no longer had to go to the elder men and ask him, hey, may I use that axe? It also broke up the tribal ceremonies that were surround, that were about the acts. It broke up the guilds of men who were able to make the axe. It destroyed a complex social network. You know, their social structure had been made up of daily life surrounding their technology over a thousand years. And in a few months, boom, it was all gone. It was all gone. Now, the reason that story is important is because I think that it lays out the very foundation of introducing new technology to groups of people, be it tribes, be it cities, be it continents, we're all humans.

And even though we may feel as if we're different today than a tribe of indigenous aborigines 60 years ago, but really not that different, we're really not that different. In fact, people argue that if today you went into a room and took out all the screens, be it TVs or iPads or phones, that room would look exactly like it did. in the 50s. So think about that. However, upon introducing new technology to a group of people or a society, one must understand three points, three components, form, function, and meaning. In the case of the axe, the form was the technology. It was a better form of technology, the steel axe versus the stone axe. The function of the technology, the function of the technology.

was to hold together the hierarchy, the status, the group cohesiveness, amongst helping prepare for the daily activities. You see, in both the tribe and the missionaries had somewhat of an understanding of both of those, the form and the function. However, what neither of them understood about the technology was the meaning. The meaning. Neither understood the meaning. because the meaning was determined over time

through absorption of the technology into the receiving culture. And that's the same problem we have today with our forms of technology. And specifically when I say technology, I mean this new idea of technocratic government. We understand the form, we understand the function, but we do not have any idea of what the meaning is.

And nor do these people in charge who think that they can better provide for the planet using a rule by science. Let me give you a quick story. Or I'm going to lead into this because what I want this to lead into is I want this to lead into you. And I want to argue that the motivations of scientists are not what you think. In fact, the motivations of modern day scientists are much like the motivations of all people who find themselves in positions of authority. They are dangerous. They are shrouded with egoistic narrow sight. They are problematic, to say the least.

They're very short-sighted. immediately what comes to mind for me is Elon Musk Everyone loves this guy Hey Elon you're doing great man Good job Elon nice job on the car Have you Have you just taken a few minutes to think about the Irony in which that guy runs his life

If you listen to interviews with him He's one of the number one components against AI He's the first one to tell you That artificial intelligence is a huge problem and it may be the detriment of our entire planet. Don't believe me. Look him up. Look him up on YouTube. He is the number one guy to bring out this component. Listen to him on Rogan. He gets all quiet and he's scared and he's like, oh no, this is probably going to be what undoes us. He doesn't mince words. That's what he thinks. However, he's probably the leading force rushing us

down this road of technocratic government. He's the number one person training AI in our country? What is NeuroLink? Neurolink is putting a chip in your brain. Is that not going to be the very foundation on which AI is going to learn how to understand what it's like to be human, if that's even possible? If it's even possible, how can Elon Musk sit up here and run his mouth about how dangerous AI is and then spend his entire life trying to create it? How can he do that? How can he do that. I'm asking you. You see, now you're beginning to understand the motivations of scientists. It's not to better humanity. Think of the Elon Musk situation, which I just told you. He's not trying to create a better humanity. He may tell you that, but is that what he's doing? No, his research is going

to lead to the very thing that he thinks is going to destroy humanity, yet he's pushing forward at a pace that is not only incredibly problematic, but it's unsustainable. We're running from the very thing that could free us. That's one example. I'd like to give you a few more examples. Let us think of Werner von Braun. Everybody remembers him, right? He was the lead scientist for the V2 rocket.

Was that what he made, the V2 rocket? He was Hitler's chief rocket scientist and directed development of the V2 rocket that killed some 20,000 civilians in allied countries during World War II. See, Von Braun claimed after the war that his motives had been, quote-unquote, patriotic. But while he was working for Hitler,

von Braun must have known that the Jews were being exterminated, since this was kind of an open secret in Germany from the end of 42 at the very latest. You know, what kind of patriotism would lead a man to build weapons for a regime that exterminates entire ethnic groups from sheer spite? It is sufficiently clear, I would argue, that patriotism was merely an excuse for von Braun, and that all he really wanted was to build rockets for their own sake, right?

You know, as World War II neared its end in, 45, Braun and many of his associates close to surrender to the U.S. I'm sorry. As World War II neared its end in 45, Braun and many of his associates chose to surrender to the U.S. where they believe they would likely receive support for their rocket research. And they did. And they did. The point here is not that building weapons for Hitler is morally equivalent to building weapons for a democratic regime like that of the U.S.

The point is that scientists commonly attribute to themselves noble-sounding motives such as patriotism that don't necessarily have anything to do with their real motives. And no, this practice is not limited to those who build weapons for dictatorial regimes. So there's two. We got Elon and Von Braun. And isn't it interesting that both of them were leaders in rocketry in their time? Isn't it interesting that that was. In 1930, when Von Braun did it, isn't it interesting that it's close to 2030 now?

Isn't it interesting that the same ideas that plague our nation today plagued the nations of other countries then, almost exactly? Right? The world doesn't repeat. History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. And we're close to the same thing. Let's find another example. in the United States, the development of the first atomic bomb was directed by a physicist named J. Robert Oppenheimer. And his speech delivered on November 2nd, 45, to the scientists, to the scientists, to the scientists who had participated in the bomb project at Los Alamos, New Mexico. Oppenheimer remarked, one always has to worry that what people say of their motives is not adequate. Oppenheimer then ran through the usual excuses that scientists gave for working on atomic bomb. The Nazis might have gotten the bomb first.

There was no place in the world where the development of atomic weapons would have had a smaller chance of leading disaster than in the U.S. The real importance of the scientist's work lay not in weapons but in the benefits that atomic energy would bring to mankind, etc., etc., etc. Oppenheimer noted that all the rationalizations had more or less validity, but insisted that the real reason why the scientist had developed the bomb was that for them, their work was a personal need, an organic necessity. Scientists, in Oppenheimer's view, lived by a philosophy according to which the acquisition and diffusion of knowledge was an end in itself, independent, of whether it brought any practical benefit to the human race. The implications of Oppenheimer's speech are evident, even though Oppenheimer did not state them clearly. Scientists work not for the benefit of humanity,

but in order to satisfy their own needs. While Oppenheimer probably believed that science did on balance benefit humanity, he recognized that the justification of science in terms of benefit to humanity was essentially a rationalization that did not represent scientists real motives. It is significant that the printed version of this speech found among Oppenheimer's papers was marked. This material is not for public release. A revised version will probably appear soon in one of the scientific journals.

In fact, however, the speech seems never to have been published in revised form or otherwise, prior to its inclusion in Smith and Wiener's book about Oppenheimer. You see, on some level, as humans, as people, especially people in positions of authority, we want to be remembered. We do things to do them. And it's important that everybody understand just because you can do something

doesn't mean you should do something. That's two. That's two. Let's find another one. Siemens. Everybody knows the defense contractor Siemens, right? Siemens was a 19th century electrical engineer who invented the self-exciting generator and made other important advances in the applications of electricity. In a letter dated December 25, 1887, Siemens described his motives.

Are you guys ready for this classic? Certainly I have striven for profit and wealth, but not mainly in order to enjoy them. rather to gain the means for the execution of other projects and undertakings, and by my success to win recognition of the correctness of my procedure and the usefulness of my work. Therefore, from my youth upward, I have yearned to establish a worldwide firm such as that of Fugger, which would assure not only to myself but also to my successors, power and esteem in the world. world and the means also of raising my sisters and other near relatives to higher standards of life. I regard our business as only secondary a source of wealth. For me, it is rather a kingdom that I have

founded and that I hope to leave intact to my successors for further creative work. You understand? It's not a legacy of bettering humanity. It's a legacy of conquering. It's a legacy of power. There's not a word about the benefit of humanity. But if you notice, he puts the importance in his speech on the execution of projects, undertakings, creative work for their own sake. It goes deeper. We're going to get there. We're going to get there.

You know, some people think about, so we've talked about rocketry and weaponry and electricity. Oppenheimer. Let's talk about another area of science. Scientists who work in the fields having an obviously humanitarian purpose, such as the treatment of disease, are motivated by a desire to benefit the human race. Right? How about the biologists? They clearly care about making humankind better, right? In some cases, perhaps, but in general, I think not. This is from a bacteriologist named Zinser and this is what he wrote

never having had any close association with workers in the field of infectious disease he shared this misconception of the noble motives which impelled these queer people and not quite understanding how anyone could be impelled by noble motives he asked us how do

bacteriologists get that way as a matter of fact men go into this branch of work from a number of motives, the last of which is a self-conscious desire to do good. Did you hear that? Let me read that part again. As a matter of fact, men go into this branch of work from a number of motives, the last of which is a self-conscious desire to do good. The point is that it remains one of the few sporting propositions left for individuals who feel the need of a certain amount of excitement. Infectious disease is one of the few genuine adventures left in the world.

About the only genuine sporting proposition that remains unimpaired by the relentless domestication of a once free living human species is the war against these ferocious little fellow creatures. How about Einstein? What do you guys think about him? Was his work motivated to benefit humanity? What do you guys think? Let's dig in a little bit.

In 1917, Einstein wrote, Our entire much-praised technological progress and civilization generally could be compared to an axe in the hand of a pathological criminal. This is from Einstein's own writings. Our entire much-praised technological progress and civilization generally could be compared to an axe in the hand of a pathological criminal. It is therefore difficult to conceive of any altruistic motive for, Einstein's scientific work. Einstein must have realized that any advance in physics would be likely to have practical applications and therefore to continue to the technological progress that he had compared to an axe

in the hand of a criminal, yet he continued. His work in theoretical physics until very late in life, even after he had seen the development of nuclear weapons, to which his own research had contributed. So why did he continue his work? It may have been a kind of compulsion, maybe. Toward the end of his life, he wrote, I cannot tear myself away from my work. It has me inter-exonerably in its clutches.

Okay. Let's think about this a little bit more. Whether it was a compulsion or not, Einstein's scientific work had nothing to do with any desire to benefit the human race. In an autobiography that he wrote at the age of 67, Einstein described his reasons for devoting himself to science. As a small child, he was already oppressed by a sense of the vanity or emptiness of hoping and striving.

This suggests a depressive and defeatist mentality. Einstein, moreover, seems to have been too delicate a child to face the workday world, for he saw at an early age what he called the cruelty of the busy effort that was necessary in order to make a living. At first he tried to escape from the painful feelings by becoming deeply religious. But at the age of 12, he lost his faith as a result of reading scientific books that disprove the tales of the Bible. He then turned for soulless to science itself, which provided him with a paradise that replaced a religious paradise he lost. It thus appears that for Einstein, scientific work was not only a surrogate activity, but also when it's escape from a world that he found too harsh.

In any case, it is certain that Einstein turned to science solely in order to satisfy his personal needs. Nowhere in his autobiography did he suggest any ways in which his research might improve the lot of the human race. Are you guys getting this? Getting it all figured out?

There's a few more. Let me just, let me just, let me just try to drive the point home. A little bit longer, guys. Let me try to explain, I think by maybe defining ideology, I can better help people understand the situation. If I were to explain ideology as the following, ideology offers a different version of the relation between the motive and what it motivates. The materials which compose an ideology and which it organizes can face the full light of day, so to speak. they're not only allowable but honorable and they constantly seek to affirm the relationship with the recognized social values the aspirations of the believer are translated into ethical and social terms by ideology

that's a that's hard to think about i know and i couldn't break it down any more simplistic than that but I will read it again so that you can take a moment to mow it over in your head. Ideology offers a different version of the relationship between the motive and what it motivates. The materials which compose an ideology and which it organizes can face the full light of day, so to speak. They are not only allowable but honorable, and they constantly seek to affirm their relationship with the recognized social values. values. The aspirations of the believer are translated into ethical and social terms by ideology. But the ideology that represents science as a humanitarian enterprise is belayed by the actual behavior of scientists. The image of scientists has dedicated humanitarians originating at a time

when too many people, it seemed plausible to assume that scientific and technological progress were unequivocally beneficial and when scientific work usually was not very I can't think of the word respected I guess or I can't think of it an occasional applied scientist might become rich we've already noticed the case of Siemens and Alfred Nobel the inventor of dynamite he provides another example but typically the scientists toiled in the laboratory year after year on a professor's

meager salary for sheer love of the work hence he gave the impression of being an unselfish idealist a few scientists even refused opportunities to profit financially from their research thus rontigan the discover

of x-ray photography donated the money from his Nobel Prize to a university and both he and the kouris who discovered radium declined to patent the processes they had invented so there's nothing surprising about the fact that scientists acquired a reputation as unselfish benefactors of mankind which in some cases no doubt they believe themselves to be but all that changed during the course of world war two when science demonstrated its crucial importance as an instrument of power that's according to norbert weiner a distinguished mathematician and pioneer computer scientist wrote in fifty the face, the ideas, and the motivations of science all changed during the course of World War II when science demonstrated its crucial importance as an instrument of power. In most previous times, the personnel of science had been seated by the austerity of the work and the scantinness of the pickings, thus an ambitious man with slightly anti-social tendency

or, to put it more politely, indifferent to spending other people's money, would formally have avoided a scientific career, as if it were the plague itself. From the time of war on, these adventurers, who would have started out as stock promoters or lights of the insurance business, have been invading science. Just like today, our best and brightest go into finance, come up with derivatives of a way to use money to make money without building anything I think you guys get the point

why do we go into the motivations of scientists why did I give you examples of Warner von Braun Siemens Elon Musk well I gave you all those examples for the same reason I gave you the story about the acts and the Aborigines the motivations of scientists are not altruistic. The motivations of scientists are not to better humanity. Even when we think

the scientists that we are fond of, like Elon Musk, they fail to understand complexity and they fail to understand the law of unintended consequences. And the reason we bring all this up is because the government in which the United Nations, the Silicon Valley's, the Bill Gates, the United Nations, they want to bring in a technocratic government, which is rule by science. They don't truly understand the long-term unintended consequences that it's going to create. And again, in closing, we are right now on the cusp of the 30s. Do you truly understand that? History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. We are on the doorstep of the next World War.

on the very doorstep of calamity, financial chaos, globalism versus nationalism. It's coming. And while I can't change any of it, I can make you aware of it. I love you. Aloha.