TrueLife - Technological Slavery: Ted Kaczynski’s Warning and the Rise of the Machine Mind (Reading #4)

Episode Date: December 3, 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/Before he became a symbol of rebellion and tragedy, Ted Kaczynski was a mathematician turned philosopher who saw the trajectory of civilization as a slow suicide by technology. In this reading and analysis of Technological Slavery, George Monty dives into the uncomfortable truths of Kaczynski’s arguments — the loss of autonomy, the illusion of progress, and the psychological toll of a world governed by machines.This episode isn’t an endorsement — it’s an examination of a prophetic, dangerous mind who saw the future unfolding faster than anyone could stop it.In this episode:The core philosophy behind Technological SlaveryHow technological systems dominate human behaviorThe paradox of freedom in a hyper-connected worldThe moral and psychological collapse of industrial societyCan humanity reclaim control from its own creation?Keywords: Ted Kaczynski, technological slavery, technology and freedom, digital age, psychology, industrial civilization, transhumanism, AI ethics, surveillance societyTechnological Slavery PDFTranscript:https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/58048050Speaker 0 (0s): Well, well, welcome back, everybody. Hope everyone's doing, Speaker 1 (7s): Well breaking it out here on this Wednesday, back to our friend, the mad man in the cabin, the Harvard LSD experiment tour coming to you from the industrial society and its future. Technological Slavery. Here we go. If you remember yesterday, we kind of left off about the power process. We left off about feelings of inferiority, how our society can over socialize us and what kind of potential psychological problems that, that leads to today. We're going to get into how some people adjust to those particular issues. Here we go. Not everyone in industrial technological society suffers from psychological problems. Some people even profess to be quite satisfied with society as it is. We now discuss some of the reasons why people defer so greatly in their response to modern society. One beginning, interjection I often heard and where I once heard that in a society that is sick, the sickest people seem to be the most healthy. Think about that. First, there are doubtless are innate differences in the strength of the driver for power individuals, with a weak drive for power may have relatively little need to go through the power process, or at least relatively little need for autonomy in the power process. These are docile Speaker 0 (1m 59s): <inaudible> Speaker 1 (2m 3s): At old South. We don't mean to sneer the plantation of the old South to their credit. Most of the slaves were not content with their servitude. We do sneer at people who are content with their servitude. Some people may have some exceptional drive and pursuing which they satisfy their need for the power process. For example, those who have an unusually strong dry for social status may spend their whole lives, claiming the status ladder without ever getting bored with that gain people vary in their susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques. Some people are so susceptible, even if they make a great deal of money, they cannot satisfy. There are constant craving for the shiny new toys and the marketing industry that Speaker 2 (3m 0s): The marketing industry dangles before their eyes. So they always feel hard pressed financially, even if their income is large and their cravings are frustrated. Some people have low susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques. These are the people who aren't interested in money. Material acquisition does not serve their need for the power process. People who have mediums susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques are able to earn enough money to satisfy their craving for goods and services, but only at the cost of serious effort, putting in overtime, taking a second job, earning promotions, et cetera, thus material acquisition serves their need for the power process, but it does not necessarily follow that their need is fully satisfied. They may have insufficient autonomy in the power of process. Their work may consist in following orders and some of their drives may be frustrated, EEG security, aggression. We are guilty of oversimplifying oversimplification because we have assumed that the desire for a material acquisition is entirely a creation of the advertising and marketing industry. Of course, it's not that simple. Some people partly satisfy their need for power by identifying themselves with a powerful organization or a man and individual lacking goals or power joined some movement or an organization adopts its goals as his own then works towards those goals. When some of the goals are attained, the individual, even though his personal efforts have played only a insignificant part. And the attainment of those goals feels through his identification with the movement or organization as if he had gone through the power process. This phenomenon was exploited by the fascists Nazis and communists. Our society uses it to the less crudely example. Manuel Noriega was in irritant of the U S the goal punished Noriega, the U S invaded Panama Panama effort and punish Noriega attainment of goal. The U S went through the power process and many Americans because of their identification with the us experience, the power process, vicariously hints, the widespread public approval of the Panama invasion. It gave people a sense of power. We see the same phenomenon in armies corporations, political parties, humanitarian organizations, religious or ideological movements in particular leftist movements tend to attract people who are seeking to satisfy their need for power. But for most people identification with a large organization or a mass movement does not fully satisfy the need for power. Another way in which people satisfy their need for the power process is through surrogate activities. As we explained in previous paragraphs, a surrogate activity is an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that the individual pursues for the sake of the fulfillment that he gets from pursuing the goal, not because he needs to attain the goal itself. For instance, there was no practical motive for building enormous muscles, hitting a little white ball and do a whole, or acquiring a complete series of postage stamps. Yet many people in our society. Do you vote themselves with passion to bodybuilding golf, or stamp collecting? Some people are more other directed than others, and therefore we'll more readily attach importance to a surrogate activity simply because the people around them treat it as important, or because society tells them it is important. That is why some people get very serious about esse...

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. Fearers 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. Welcome back, everybody. Hope everyone's doing well. Breaking it out here on this Wednesday. Back to our friend, the madman in the cabin. the Harvard LSD

experimenter coming to you from the industrial society and its future technological slavery here we go if you remember yesterday we kind of left off about the power process

we left off about feelings of inferiority how our society can over-socialize us and what kind of potential psychological problems that that leads to. Today we're going to get into how some people adjust to those particular issues. Here we go. Not everyone in industrial technological society suffers from psychological problems. Some people even profess to be quite satisfied with society as it is.

We now discuss some of the reasons why people, differ so greatly in their response to modern society. One, beginning interjection. I often heard, or I once heard, that in a society that is sick, the sickest people seem to be the most healthy. Think about that. First, their doubtless are innate differences in the strength of the drive for power. individuals with a weak drive for power may have

relatively little need to go through the power process or at least relatively little need for autonomy in the power process these are docile types in the old south we don't mean to sneer at the plantation of the old south to their credit most of the slaves were not content with their servitude. We do sneer at people who are content with their servitude.

Some people may have some exceptional drive in pursuing which they satisfy their need for the power process. For example, those who have an unusually strong drive for social status may spend their whole lives climbing the status ladder without ever getting bored with that gain. people vary in their susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques some people are so susceptible even if they make a great deal of money they cannot satisfy their constant craving for the shiny new toys and the marketing industry that the marketing industry dangles before their eyes so they always feel hard pressed financially even if their income is large and their cravings are frustrated. Some people have low susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques.

These are the people who aren't interested in money. Material acquisition does not serve their need for the power process. People who have medium susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques are able to earn enough money to satisfy their craving for goods and services, but only at the cost of serious effort. putting in overtime, taking a second job, earning promotions, etc. Thus, material acquisition serves their need for the power process, but it does not necessarily follow that their need is fully satisfied.

They may have insufficient autonomy in the power process. Their work may consist in following orders, and some of their drives may be frustrated, e.g., security, aggression. we are guilty of oversimplification because we have assumed that the desire for material acquisition is entirely a creation of the advertising and marketing industry. Of course, it's not that simple. Some people partly satisfy their need for power by identifying themselves with a powerful organization or a mass movement. An individual lacking goals or power joins a movement or an organization.

adopts its goals as his own. Then works towards those goals. When some of the goals are attained, the individual, even though his personal efforts have played only an insignificant part in the attainment of those goals, feels through his identification with the movement or organization, as if he had gone through the power process. This phenomenon was exploited by the fascists, Nazis, and communists. Our society uses it too.

Though less crudely, example, Manuel Noriega was an irritant of the U.S. The goal punished Noriega. The U.S. invaded Panama effort and punished Noriega, attainment of goal. The U.S. went through the power process, and many Americans, because of their identification with the U.S., experienced the power process vicariously. Hence the widespread public approval of the Panama invasion. It gave people a sense of power. We see the same phenomena in armies, corporations, political parties, humanitarian organizations,

religious or ideological movements. In particular, leftist movements tend to attract people who are seeking to satisfy their need for power. But for most people, identification with a large organization with a large organization, organization or a mass movement does not fully satisfy the need for power. Another way in which people satisfy their need for the power process is through surrogate activities. As we explained in previous paragraphs, a surrogate activity is an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that the individual pursues for the sake of the fulfillment that he gets from pursuing the goal.

because he needs to attain the goal itself. For instance, there is no practical motive for building enormous muscles, hitting a little white ball into a hole, or acquiring a complete series of postage stamps. Yet many people in our society devote themselves with passion to bodybuilding, golf, or stamp collecting. Some people are more other directed than others, and therefore will more readily attestead attach importance to a surrogate activity simply because the people around them treat it as important or because society tells them it is important.

That is why some people get very serious about essential trivial activities such as sports or bridge or chess or arcane scholarly pursuits, whereas others who are more clear-sighted never see these things as anything but the surrogate activities that they are, and consequently never attach enough importance to them to satisfy their need for the power process in that way. It only remains to point out that in many cases a person's way of earning a living is also a surrogate activity, not a pure surrogate activity, since part of the motive for the activity is to gain the physical necessities, and for some, people social status and the luxuries that advertising makes them want, but many people put

into their work far more effort than is necessary to earn whatever money and status they require. And this extra effort constitutes a surrogate activity. This extra effort, together with the emotional investment that accompanies it, is one of the most potent forces acting toward the continual development and perfecting of the system with negative consequences for individual freedom. Especially for the most creative scientists and engineers, work tends to be largely a surrogate activity. This point is so important that it deserves a separate discussion, which we will give in a moment. In this section, we have explained how many people in modern society

do satisfy their need for the power process to a greater or lesser extent, but we think that for the majority of people, the need for the power process is not fully satisfied. In the first place, those who have an insatiable drive for status or who get firmly hooked on a surrogate activity or who identifies strongly enough with a movement or an organization to satisfy their need for power in that way are exceptional personalities. Others are not fully satisfied with surrogate activities. or by identification with an organization.

In the second place, too much control is imposed by the system through explicit regulation or through socialization, which results in a deficiency of autonomy and in frustration due to the impossibility of attaining certain goals and the necessity of restraining too many impulses. But even if most people in industrial technological society were well satisfied, we would still be opposed to that form of society

because among other reasons we consider it demeaning to fulfill one's need for the power process through surrogate activities or through identification with an organization rather than through the pursuit of real goals. The motives of scientists. This is going to be particularly important so just think about

the word truth when I read this particular passage about scientists science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities some scientists claim

that they are motivated by curiosity or by a desire to benefit humanity but it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive for most scientists. As for curiosity, that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the subject of any normal curiosity.

For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician, or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopoportemone? Tritamine? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? Nope. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves

seriously to obtain the physical necessities and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some non-scientific pursuit then they wouldn't give a damn about isopropyl tritamine or the classification of beetles

suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist? In that case, he would have been very interested in insurance matters, but would have cared nothing about isopropyl tryptamine. In any case, it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity, the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work.

The quote-unquote curiosity explanation of the scientist's motive just doesn't stand up. The benefit of humanity explanation doesn't work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human race. Most of archaeology or comparative linguistics, for example. I don't know. I think comparative linguistics may, in fact, benefit humanity. I mean, if you could communicate better, if you could find a way to add intention into language that would do away with users,

agreements or contract law. I think that would vastly benefit humanity. I think we suffer from a lack of being able to communicate. Most of archaeology or comparative linguistics, for example, some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn't Dr. Teller get emotional about the humanitarian causes?

If he was such a humanitarian, then why did he help to develop the hydrogen bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and the risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly, his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to benefit humanity, but from the personal fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put into practical use. The same is true of scientists generally.

With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity, but the need to go through the power process, to have a goal, a scientific problem to solve, to make an effort, research, and to attain the goal, solution of the problem. Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfilling, fulfillment they get out of the work itself. Of course, it's not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Money, status, for example.

Some scientists may be persons of the type who have an insatiable drive for status. And this may provide much of the motivation for their work. No doubt the majority of scientists, like the majority of the general population, are more or less susceptible to advertising and marketing techniques. and need money to satisfy their craving for goods and services. Thus, science is not a pure surrogate activity, but it is in large part a surrogate activity. Also, science and technology constitute a powerful mass movement,

and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement. Thus, science marches on the movement. Science marches on blindly without regard to the real welfare of the human race, or to any other standard obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research. It's interesting, right? It's interesting to think about the different underlying motives that help

I don't know if help, but it's interesting to think about the underlying motives that move us through our day. Do you agree with that? Would you guys say that the things we do, at least for the most of us? You know, for me, like, I'm a UPS driver. I deliver a lot of packages, and I guess some of the extra things that I would do on my route would be surrogate activities. You know, there's a lot of kids on my route, and I always try to. to bring like little logic puzzles or you know I try to ask them questions that will get them thinking about life and I like to think that you know maybe later

in their life they would look back and remember this this UPS driver that tried to teach him cool things or that made their life a little bit better however my main function of my job is just to deliver boxes you know it's I guess the that would be a surrogate activity. It's interesting to think about the power process and how we define ourselves. I guess I would also add that so many people actually define who they are by what they do, which is accurate on a whole. However, I guess to break that down further, people say, I am this.

I am a doctor. I am a truck driver. I am a business professional. I am a, you know, fill in the blank. But that is just a shadow of who they really are, right? A person has many roles. A person is a father. A person is a husband.

A person is a brother, a sister, a mother, a father, a friend, a neighbor. There's so many different roles that one plays on a daily basis. to claim that you're only one of those roles, I think does yourself a great injustice. It's also one of the ways advertising works to try to suck you into the garbage that they make you feel as if you need or attempt to make you feel as if you need.

All right, let's keep plugging away here. The nature of freedom. We are going to argue that industrial technological society cannot be reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing the sphere of human freedom. Well, that is pretty damn true. But because freedom is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of freedom we are concerned with. By freedom, we mean the opportunity to go through the power process with real goals,

not the artificial goals of surrogate activities and without interference, manipulation, or supervision from anyone, especially from any large organization. Freedom means being in control, either as an individual or as a member of a small group of the life and death issues of one's existence, food, clothing, shelter, and defense against whatever threats there may be in one's environment. freedom means having power

not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one's own life one does not have freedom if anyone else especially a large organization has power over one no matter how benevolently tolerantly or permissively that power may be exercised it is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness

Let me just read this other. Freedom means having power. Not the power to control other people, but the power to control the circumstances of one's own life. In that definition, how many people truly have power? In that definition, how many people truly have freedom? I would say an ever-dwindling number of people

you know and it's amazing to think too as an American one of our creeds is believing in the freedom we have the freedom of choice and you know I've lived in Mexico for a while and I gotta tell you there's no regulations down there to the extent that we have them

in the United States and I would argue that in a lot of third world countries you may be more free in some areas than you are in the United States. That's kind of interesting to think about. We're like one giant gated community that has all these homeowners rules. Funny to think about or is it sad to think about a little bit of both. It is said that we live in a free society because we have a certain number of constitutionally guaranteed rights.

but these are not as important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of government. Most of the Indian nations of New England were monarchies. And many of the cities of the Italian Renaissance were controlled by dictators. But in reading about these societies, one gets the impression that they allowed far more personal freedom than our society does.

In part, this was because they lacked efficient mechanisms for enforcing the ruler's will. There were no modern, well-organized police forces. No rapid, long-distance communications, no surveillance cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of average citizens. Hence, it was relatively easy to evade control. as for our constitutional rights consider for example that of freedom of the press we certainly don't mean to knock that right it is a very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part i don't know where you live however i'm willing to bet that you have one page It used to be there were a few at least two papers with dissenting ideas and much like the media people watch on TV that's been incredibly consolidated so has the paper and by paper I mean the

newspaper your local newspaper you know they've been consolidated and a lot of times the same people that own the TV stations own the paper and when it's a last time you saw someone in a position of authority get in trouble? When is the last time you saw someone in a position of authority be held responsible for their misbehavior? When we talk about, the little guy talks about justice. The people with all the money talk about just us. You see, there's a difference there. Matt Taibi has a pretty good book called The Divide. And in that book, And in that book, he gets into the levels of justice based on your income. I suppose it's always been that way.

You know, and I don't know if it's just because I'm getting older that I am able to now see it more clearly. Or if perhaps the pandemic has brought about the pulling back of the curtain to see more clearly what is happening. You know, it's when you look at a, remember that. recent, there was a recent kerfuffle with Gavin Newsom, who is the governor of California. And I think Nancy Pelosi had an issue as well. And maybe even Cuomo. You know, all of them are talking about how important is to wear masks and this whole COVID. And yet they're all out.

Just having Thanksgiving dinners and no masks on and drinking it up and having a good time. And there's zero consequences. I mean, look at Epstein. You could, you know, say he was murdered. However, I guess that's some form of justice, but the only reason he was murdered was due to the fact he was a liability for more important people. So it wasn't that he was being punished for his crimes.

It was that he was being punished for getting caught. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations. that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed or can distribute it on the internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media.

Hence, we'll have no practical effect. To make an impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals in small groups. Take us, for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted. If they had been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers because it's more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if their writings had had many readers, most of those readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded.

by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we've had to kill people. Wow. That is a very sobering, unapologetic. Wow. You see, this is exactly why children at a young age are told to not be violent. because violent, violent behavior begets change.

It was Malcolm X who said by any means necessary. You know, the system that Kaczynski talks about is constantly trying to domesticate, constantly trying to suppress your feelings of anxiety and anger and violence. Don't be violent. He don't be violent. Why? Because violence has the ability to change the same. system. Violence has the ability to overthrow the government. Violence has the ability to force people in positions of authority to change. No matter where you go, no matter who you listen to,

people always say, I don't call for violence. I'm not calling for violence. But yet, wasn't it the guillotine in France that caused the change? The threat of violence against the power structure is the only thing that holds it in check. Jeffrey Epstein, all these politicians can benefit from insider trading

while regular people get nothing. Like, how about the Wall Street executives? I think it would only take a handful of people to be violently fucking murdered, just violently fucking murdered. with their head on a fucking pike outside their fucking house, and things would change.

A few senators, a few fucking congressmen. I think that's what people are worried about. Of course, I am not calling for violence, because I am not a violent person. However, I could see his point. And when you, I think it's important when you try to read what this person is saying, you should try to get into their mindset. That's what I'm trying to do here.

I'm trying to see what this person is saying by thinking from their point of view. And I think that's exact, like, I think what I just said is something that Kaczynski would have said. You can see the point. I know it sounds crazy. And look, you should never go kill people. I'm not saying you should. But when you read this material, if you really want to get. the idea of the person that's saying it,

you should try to think from their point of view. And that goes for any book. That goes for any autobiography. You know, you should try to put yourself in that person's head. Put yourself in that person's mindset. In fact, you should probably do that for anybody that you talk with. Like, if you, anybody you have a relationship with, like you should try to pretend to be that person and think how they feel and try to

Try to become that person. And then you'll understand them better. But it's important that you always pull yourself out too. Like don't fucking stay that person. Then you might do some crazy shit. Don't stay that person. You got to pull yourself back out. But jump into their personality.

Jump into their head. Jump into their thoughts and be them. It's an interesting exercise. All right. Where are we at here? Constitutional rights are useful up to a point. But they do not serve to guarantee much. more than what might be called the bourgeois conception of freedom.

According to the bourgeois conception, a free man is essentially an element of a social machine that has only a certain set of prescribed and delimited freedoms. Freedoms that are designed to serve the needs of the social machine more than those of the individual. Thus the bourgeois free man has economic freedom because that promotes growth and progress. He has freedom of the press because public criticism restrains misbehavior by political leaders. He has a right to a fair trial because imprisonment at the whim of the powerful would be bad for the system. This was clearly the attitude of Simon Boulevard. To him, people deserve liberty only if they use it to promote progress, progress as conceived by.

the bourgeois. Other bourgeois thinkers have taken a similar view of freedom as a mere means to collective ends. Chester C. Tan explains the philosophy of the Kuman Tang leader, Hu Han Men. An individual is granted rights because he is a member of society and his community life requires such rights. By community, who meant the whole society or the nation? and Tan states that according to Carson Chang Chang Chung Mai, head of the state socialist party in China,

freedom had to be used in the interest of the state and of the people as a whole. But what kind of freedom does one have if one can use it only as someone else prescribes? Our conception of freedom is not that of Bolivar. Hu, Chang, or other bourgeois theorists. The trouble with such theorists is that they have made the development and application of social theories their surrogate activity.

Consequently, the theories are designed to serve the needs of the theorists more than the needs of any people who may be unlucky enough to live in a society on which the theories are imposed. one more point to be made in this section it should not be assumed that a person has enough freedom just because he says he has enough freedom is restricted in part by psychological controls of which people are unconscious

and moreover many people's ideas of what constitutes freedom are governed more by social convention than by their real needs For example, it's likely that many leftists of the over-socialized type would say that most people, including themselves, are socialized too little rather than too much. Yet the over-socialized leftist pays a heavy psychological price for his high level of socialization. Well, that, my friends, is fascinating, don't you think? it's

I find it rewarding and just very thought-provoking to read about ideas that were deemed to be so dangerous they couldn't be printed and that's what this book was

I don't endorse what anyone says really I mean I think you should do your own thinking about life and that we just get so busy. It gets so complicated and so busy that you read a headline or you don't have time to think about something or you're out working on your power process

or you're out trying to find meaning in your own surrogate activities and we farm out our ideas to so-called quote-unquote experts. However, it's important to remember that these experts, especially the ones you see on TV or reading a paper, these are experts with agendas and it's usually not in your best interest so if you have to seek out an expert

if you need an expert realize all you're getting is an expert opinion and that you should seek out an expert opinion but then you should make up your own mind because at the end of the day all experts have is their opinion and you

as a free individual you have your opinion you can read the same books you can read the same literature you can read about the same experiences and then you can make up your mind about what the right thing to do is critical thinking that's what we got for today ladies and gentlemen thank you for spending time with me

tomorrow we're going to do a little bit more we're going to jump into some principles of history we're going to get into the industrial technological society cannot be reformed, the restriction of freedom. It's interesting. So, they may take our lives,

but they'll never take our freedom.