INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Litigious on March 16, 2007, 06:07:44 AM
-
We've talked about Theodore Kaczynski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Kaczynski) and his "manifesto", Industrial Society and Its Future (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future#Strategy). I thought that it'd be interesting to discuss it further here. Some of us, including myself, are very suspicious towards modern "Big Brother" society, and it'll be interesting to read your views on this.
I especially like how he ridicules naïve suckers of the kind that my own country is full of and who actually help Big Brother to suppress us all:
7. --- What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
10. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., are inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).
15. 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 that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They say 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 leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he grudgingly admits that they exist; whereas he enthusiastically points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.
20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they prefer masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.
22. 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.
29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black "underclass" they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all essential respects leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers "responsible." They want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.
(I know it's kind of ironical that I type this on a computer to a site on the other side of the planet.)
-
so did he have aspergers?
-
I don't know. He might have had, considering his undisputable intelligence, lack of close friends, unconventional ideas, etc. By the way, he's still alive but spending lifetime for murder without parole. :(
-
By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
i read alot of these feelings on these boards.
-
He's against all modern ideologies, by the way, not just "leftism".
50. The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.
-
By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
i read alot of these feelings on these boards.
We all have them in us, to some extent. I have an old-fashioned Swedish upbringing, that I have to fight every day.
-
so did he have aspergers?
His mom thought that he might have autism when he was little and she considered enrolling him in Bettelheim's study, but she didn't actually do it. Ted was later diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia. I think he fits the criteria for Paranoid Schizophrenia more closely than Asperger Syndrome.
You know that picture of Kaczynski in the grey hooded sweatshirt with the aviator sunglasses? My husband, a Ph. D. mathematician, dressed like that for a bus pass photo for a joke and he looked remarkably like him.
This one:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
But what about his ideas?
-
More quotations:
Restriction of Freedom is Unavoidable in Industrial Society
114. As explained in paragraph 65-67, 70-73, modern man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations, and his fate depends on the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions he cannot influence. This is not accidental or a result of the arbitrariness of arrogant bureaucrats. It is necessary and inevitable in any technologically advanced society. The system has to regulate human behavior closely in order to function. At work, people have to do what they are told to do, otherwise production would be thrown into chaos. Bureaucracies have to be run according to rigid rules. To allow any substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats would disrupt the system and lead to charges of unfairness due to differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercised their discretion. It is true that some restrictions on our freedom could be eliminated, but generally speaking the regulation of our lives by large organizations is necessary for the functioning of industrial-technological society. The result is a sense of powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be, however, that formal regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by psychological tools that make us want to do what the system requires of us. (Propaganda 14, educational techniques, "mental health" programs, etc.)
115. The system has to force people to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior. For example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and engineers. It can't function without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to excel in these fields. It isn't natural for an adolescent human being to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study. A normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact with the real world. Among primitive peoples the things that children are trained to do are in natural harmony with natural human impulses. Among the American Indians, for example, boys were trained in active outdoor pursuits—just the sort of things that boys like. But in our society children are pushed into studying technical subjects, which most do grudgingly.
116. Because of the constant pressure that the system exerts to modify human behavior, there is a gradual increase in the number of people who cannot or will not adjust to society's requirements: welfare leeches, youth-gang members, cultists, anti-government rebels, radical environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts and resisters of various kinds.
117. In any technologically advanced society the individual's fate must depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a society must be highly organized and decisions have to be made that affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be significant.[17] Thus most individuals are unable to influence measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. Their is no conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society. The system tries to "solve" this problem by using propaganda to make people want the decisions that have been made for them, but even if this "solution" were completely successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning.
118. Conservatives and some others advocate more "local autonomy." Local communities once did have autonomy, but such autonomy becomes less and less possible as local communities become more enmeshed with and dependent on large-scale systems like public utilities, computer networks, highway systems, the mass communications media, the modern health care system. Also operating against autonomy is the fact that technology applied in one location often affects people at other locations far away. Thus pesticide or chemical use near a creek may contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles downstream, and the greenhouse effect affects the whole world.
119. The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.[18] Of course the system does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extent that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn't function if everyone starved; it attends to people's psychological needs whenever it can conveniently do so, because it couldn't function if too many people became depressed or rebellious. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system. Too much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo "retraining," no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity and for good reason: If human needs were put before technical necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of "mental health" in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress.
120. Efforts to make room for a sense of purpose and for autonomy within the system are no better than a joke. For example, one company, instead of having each of its employees assemble only one section of a catalogue, had each assemble a whole catalogue, and this was supposed to give them a sense of purpose and achievement. Some companies have tried to give their employees more autonomy in their work, but for practical reasons this usually can be done only to a very limited extent, and in any case employees are never given autonomy as to ultimate goals—their "autonomous" efforts can never be directed toward goals that they select personally, but only toward their employer's goals, such as the survival and growth of the company. Any company would soon go out of business if it permitted its employees to act otherwise. Similarly, in any enterprise within a socialist system, workers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise, otherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose as part of the system. Once again, for purely technical reasons it is not possible for most individuals or small groups to have much autonomy in industrial society. Even the small-business owner commonly has only limited autonomy. Apart from the necessity of government regulation, he is restricted by the fact that he must fit into the economic system and conform to its requirements. For instance, when someone develops a new technology, the small-business person often has to use that technology whether he wants to or not, in order to remain competitive.
-
I think a lot of what Kaczynski said were the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic, even though he was a brilliant mathematician at one time.
-
I think a lot of what Kaczynski said were the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic,
Yes, but the scarry thing is that a lot of what he says is true. It's a 50/50 mix of genius and madness.
-
Except for that I love driving and like to use the internet, I wouldn't miss most technological stuff very much, actually.
And I really like his ideas about overthrowing the "almighty" government and fake democracy once and for all and give the power to the people for real.
-
Except for that I love driving and like to use the internet, I wouldn't miss most technological stuff very much, actually.
Same here.
And I really like his ideas about overthrowing the "almighty" government and fake democracy once and for all and give the power to the people for real.
It's a nice ideal, but making it happen is almost impossible. The strongest liars always rise to the top. Can you say "Animal Farm". :(
-
Except for that I love driving and like to use the internet, I wouldn't miss most technological stuff very much, actually.
And I really like his ideas about overthrowing the "almighty" government and fake democracy once and for all and give the power to the people for real.
can the people govern themselves.
i believe that i can, but am leary of most everybody else having the ability to do so.
-
Except for that I love driving and like to use the internet, I wouldn't miss most technological stuff very much, actually.
And I really like his ideas about overthrowing the "almighty" government and fake democracy once and for all and give the power to the people for real.
Do you want to grow your own food in a garden and prepare everything yourself, canning the excess to save for winter? If not, I don't buy your argument that except for driving and the internet, you would not miss technology and what it has given us.
Kaczynski lived in an isolated cabin that he for the most part built with his own two hands. He did not have electricity or running water. If you do, then you are more dependent on technology than you realize.
-
Except for that I love driving and like to use the internet, I wouldn't miss most technological stuff very much, actually.
And I really like his ideas about overthrowing the "almighty" government and fake democracy once and for all and give the power to the people for real.
can the people govern themselves.
i believe that i can, but am leary of most everybody else having the ability to do so.
So you want to be their leader then ??
-
I think a lot of what Kaczynski said were the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic,
Yes, but the scarry thing is that a lot of what he says is true. It's a 50/50 mix of genius and madness.
I agree with a small part of what he said and I agree that he is a curious mix of genius and madness. I'm not sure it is 50/50 though. I think once he started making bombs to hurt people, the madman won the struggle.
-
I think a lot of what Kaczynski said were the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic,
Yes, but the scarry thing is that a lot of what he says is true. It's a 50/50 mix of genius and madness.
I agree with a small part of what he said and I agree that he is a curious mix of genius and madness. I'm not sure it is 50/50 though. I think once he started making bombs to hurt people, the madman won the struggle.
When I say 50/50, I wasn't refering to his behavior, just his writings. :angel:
-
Except for that I love driving and like to use the internet, I wouldn't miss most technological stuff very much, actually.
And I really like his ideas about overthrowing the "almighty" government and fake democracy once and for all and give the power to the people for real.
Do you want to grow your own food in a garden and prepare everything yourself, canning the excess to save for winter? If not, I don't buy your argument that except for driving and the internet, you would not miss technology and what it has given us.
Kaczynski lived in an isolated cabin that he for the most part built with his own two hands. He did not have electricity or running water. If you do, then you are more dependent on technology than you realize.
We actually spent a very cold winter without running water when building my parents' house, and there often was no electricity, so I at least have some kind of idea of what it'd be like. But of course it would be pretty hard, at least to begin with.
-
I think a lot of what Kaczynski said were the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic,
Yes, but the scarry thing is that a lot of what he says is true. It's a 50/50 mix of genius and madness.
I agree with a small part of what he said and I agree that he is a curious mix of genius and madness. I'm not sure it is 50/50 though. I think once he started making bombs to hurt people, the madman won the struggle.
As he wrote in his manifesto, how would he even had gotten it published without killing people? Horrible but truth. People are more interested in watching talk shows and doing all kind on nonsense instead of engaging themselves for democracy. :(
-
And I really like his ideas about overthrowing the "almighty" government and fake democracy once and for all and give the power to the people for real.
Human nature being what it is, giving the power to the masses is not going to do much good in the long run. Cultures as stupid as the ones that are and have been will continue to fall and form, plenty of power is inevitably going to end up in the hands of a few sooner or later, wars are going to be waged, and idiots will continue to be just as many.
Government in its current form (and in the form towards which it is currently heading) is quite ridiculous, though. The best would be the forming of one actually truly capable and competent - not to mention rational - though that'd be quite a challenge; no one has ever succeeded on a large scale. My ideal would be a meritocracy where those capable would be able to climb as far as they could get, and have an amount of power proportional to the position which they reach - and those not fit would thus be prevented from screwing things up.
Further technological development could provide the keys; a government part AI that would keep the meatbags in check would be neat. :evillaugh: It is only to be encouraged - either humanity will succeed, and hopefully be able to fix its inherently b0rken nature through genetic engineering, or it will work towards its own spectacular fall at a pretty fast pace - another fine outcome. ;)
-
The thought is that there should be small, rural communities, without ant high-tech, so that the masses wouldn't rule large states, because there would be no such thing as a lagre state without electricity, modern communications, etc.
-
The problem with a meritocracy is the merits that allow you to climb aren't the merits that would allow you to govern well....
-
That's a problem that already Plato was aware of...Furthermore, the merits that you need to gain power aren't the merits that will make you a good and wise ruler.
-
The thought is that there should be small, rural communities, without ant high-tech, so that the masses wouldn't rule large states, because there would be no such thing as a lagre state without electricity, modern communications, etc.
I doubt it'd last all too long; larger states have formed under old-school undemocratic rule countless times before modern times, and sooner or later, it'd happen again, and the masses would be robbed of their power. Unless something by force would manage to keep it otherwise.
Before then, though, you'd have half-arsed mob rule on a smaller scale. As the new culture develop and knowledge recess, I'd expect widespread superstition - and all the nice things that come with it - to make a grand return.
And unless you'd somehow prevent technological advancement from reoccuring in the long term, humanity would sooner or later find its way back to its current path.
Humanity, by its nature, is like a ticking bomb that way.
The problem with a meritocracy is the merits that allow you to climb aren't the merits that would allow you to govern well....
Depends on how the system is formed; if individuals simply grab power according to the raw ability to do so that they've gained, it'd end up a bloody mess. If the power is distributed by the above levels of the system according to evaluated merits, though, you could get around the issue. To implement it, the very top of the government would have to be autocratic.
-
That's a problem that already Plato was aware of...Furthermore, the merits that you need to gain power aren't the merits that will make you a good and wise ruler.
Hey, I never said it was a new idea. :P
To implement it, the very top of the government would have to be autocratic.
And good luck finding a single person who has both the wisdom and authority to implement it properly, the power to maintain it, and a solid enough vision to know what are really merits and what are really flaws.
-
And good luck finding a single person who has both the wisdom and authority to implement it properly, the power to maintain it, and a solid enough vision to know what are really merits and what are really flaws.
I never said it would be easy, nor particularly viable, for that matter. It is simply a somewhat pipe-dreamish ideal. Though there is a fair possibility that lies in the fact that a person wouldn't neccessarily be the best choice.
-
We're going to have to get a damn sight better at programming AI then. Unless you know any helpful aliens?
-
We're going to have to get a damn sight better at programming AI then. Unless you know any helpful aliens?
WrongPlanet.org? :p
-
The Plank, Hegemon? You're gonna give me nightmares!
-
so did he have aspergers?
Somehow I doubt it. He was probably an eccentric NT with too much time on his hands.
-
so did he have aspergers?
Somehow I doubt it. He was probably an eccentric NT with too much time on his hands.
More likely he develped Schizophrenia.
-
We're going to have to get a damn sight better at programming AI then. ...
Getting better at programming such isn't the main issue; rather, it is the raw power needed to run one sophisticated enough that's lacking. Which is an issue on its way to being solved, provided the pace of advancement isn't greatly disrupted. Also note that what you probably have in mind for such an AI is something more complex than I do. It wouldn't need to pass the turing test or otherwise appear particularly human - simply be good at the specific task which it would handle. It wouldn't be a ruling person; it would manage a carefully selected couple of persons ruling just beneath it - together forming the topmost, dictatorial segment of the government.
-
How exactly would it manage those couple people? Presumably, balance them out somehow if they disagreed, to prevent any one of them from taking complete power? How would it do this?
-
This is just the kind of stuff that he warns for in the manifesto. Has anyone here except myself actually read it thoroughly?
-
This is just the kind of stuff that he warns for in the manifesto. Has anyone here except myself actually read it thoroughly?
Yep.
-
How exactly would it manage those couple people? Presumably, balance them out somehow if they disagreed, to prevent any one of them from taking complete power? How would it do this?
Uhh Ohh, we're not getting into technocracy are we ??
-
This is just the kind of stuff that he warns for in the manifesto. Has anyone here except myself actually read it thoroughly?
Yep.
So what do you think?
-
And good luck finding a single person who has both the wisdom and authority to implement it properly, the power to maintain it, and a solid enough vision to know what are really merits and what are really flaws.
i believe that i could do it, just so long as i wasn't the frontman and the puppet listened to me.
-
We're going to have to get a damn sight better at programming AI then. Unless you know any helpful aliens?
WrongPlanet.org? :p
Yes plus one for this one. :LMAO:
-
This is just the kind of stuff that he warns for in the manifesto. Has anyone here except myself actually read it thoroughly?
Leftism or Rightism would be just as bad.
-
And good luck finding a single person who has both the wisdom and authority to implement it properly, the power to maintain it, and a solid enough vision to know what are really merits and what are really flaws.
i believe that i could do it, just so long as i wasn't the frontman and the puppet listened to me.
But you make such a good frontman. Why wouldn't you want to be out front?
-
And good luck finding a single person who has both the wisdom and authority to implement it properly, the power to maintain it, and a solid enough vision to know what are really merits and what are really flaws.
i believe that i could do it, just so long as i wasn't the frontman and the puppet listened to me.
But you make such a good frontman. Why wouldn't you want to be out front?
because, due to my defensive mechanisms i usually sabbatoge myself....by blowing it at the most inopportune times.
if i weren't forced to put on a show (be up front), i really believe that i could be more effective....long term.
-
If you weren't up front, what would you be freed up to do in the background?
-
Oi fuckers, wrongplanet.org was my project, which was originally intended to perform a similar role to The Wronged, until Alex sunk it because it didn't fit in with his ideas. >:( :wanker:
-
??? Who said what to piss you off?
I'm completely with you - the world would have been a better place if you, not Alex, were in charge of WP.
-
The topic, please! ::)
-
Oh, give it a break. Nothing stays on topic around here.
-
??? Who said what to piss you off?
I'm completely with you - the world would have been a better place if you, not Alex, were in charge of WP.
Nobody's pissed me off, I was just going off topic. WP is wrongplanet.net, people kept referring to wrongplanet.org, which was a domain I acquired at Alex's request and put together a project site on based on WP members' ideas, which did not fit into Alex's planning so he sunk it with FUD and an on-site 'blackout'... I got rather annoyed about that.
-
i am lost.
dunc, will you write a manifesto to explain what you mean?
-
Sorry, I was responding to Pyraxis. I don't have a manifesto. I'm too lazy. :P
-
You hangman rope sneak Frankenstein computer slave! ;)
-
bump!