Conservatives Against Capitalism Ted and cat



welcome to another episode of conservatives against capitalism yes I realized that a better title for this would be something more like conservatives skeptical of capitalism or conservatives against global crony corporate capitalism but that's not quite the same as at this clickbait title today we have a gentleman named Ted Ted did some very naughty things a while back and wrote a manifest I wanted to focus on some of the sections that he talked about conservatives Ted says the conservatives are fools they want about the decay of traditional values yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth apparently 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 never lis break down traditional values to break down traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small scale social groups the disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations separating themselves from their communities beyond that a technological society has to weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently in modern society and individuals loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to the small-scale community because if the internal loyalties of small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system we actually do see that to some degree in groups like the Amish and I also believe the Quakers so all my Quaker subscribers let me know if that's correct that you guys do live in your own small-scale communities it has you have former loyalty to those small-scale communities than you do to the overall system I know you're out there and here where ted says that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move into new locations separating themselves from their communities if you think about the general life arc in America most people they grow up maybe in just one area and when they finish high school they go to college but typically it's not uncommon for them to move away to go to college so they separate from their family and then after the four years of college they move again to another new city chasing after the jobs again breaking the bonds and the community that they formed in that college so all alliances become temporary alliances all friendships all relationships are just I would say all are temporary but a lot most yeah probably most are just temporary and if you know they're gonna be temporary anyway I suppose you'd still form those deep relationships but I suspect it's probably more efficient and more effective to only have the the superficial layer to most of them if you're thinking in the cold calculating mechanics of the market why would you be loyal to anyone or anything when there's easy replacements around the corner whether its products or people we can say that most dramatically with our hookup culture where for a lot of young people hookups have replaced actual relationships we also see it with the decline in marriage and birth rates let's continue or I should say Ted continues conservatives and some others advocate more local autonomy local communities once did Havel Ptolemy's but central Tommi becomes less and less possible as local communities become more a meshed with and dependent on large-scale systems like Public Utilities computer networks highway systems the mass communication 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 us pesticides or chemicals used near a creek may contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles downstream and the greenhouse effect that affects the whole world now this manifest was written quite a while back before the internet was as popular as it is now you can see the mass communication how it affects everyone else whether it spreads and creates ideological bubbles or reinforces existing ideological bubbles how social media has a mole really international or not just international effect but as long as there's no language barrier how social media has this kind of international effect on everyone else and while certainly this interconnectivity does have some advantages to it such as the specialization of Labor a disadvantage to the way that all of these things are interconnected is a shock to one part of the system affects the rest of the system you know the system was not designed like the Internet where you can attempt to route around damage I don't think about how many countries have their currencies pegged to the American dollar where if the American dollar became worthless you would see a global Great Depression or how the very bad man down in New Zealand in a synagogue was attempting to influence politics in America now fortunately he was not very successful but it was I think it was believable that maybe he could have pulled it off and maybe doing it the right way could pull that could could have that kind of effect nothing I'm saying anyone should do it the right way because I I guess technically it's the wrong way and for better or for worse different political groups regardless of left right Center up down are now communicating with each other and coordinating on an international scale we also have much more fearsome mate competition with things like tinder and Bumble where now it's not just the local people you can pull from but you have more choices because of the online dating which you would think would help people make better choices but instead it seems like it's creating there's there's actually a phenomenon on my camera the the guy's name where when you have too many choices you can't make any choices at all there was a there was a man who at first noticed that my camera where his name right now and you come up with acronyms among the kids like Fobo fear of better options so you combine market style thinking to human relationships and combine it with things like social media and online dating and instead of facilitating relationships it seems to be impeding or destroying them Ted continues the system does not encounter 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 is the fault of Technology because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity I highlighted that part because he does make a very very good point and I think that this is one of the the problems with the modern politics is that people are still thinking that things are driven by ideology rather than being driven either by technological necessity or by just simply the profit motive there's been other people who've done some very good videos on this Tim Poole did some good videos on the gentrification of YouTube and how it looks like they want to become Netflix 2.0 so a lot of the the outrage and the deep monetization and all of that really has more to do with them wanting to become Netflix 2.0 then necessarily being driven by a particular ideology and I'm not saying pressure groups might not take advantage of the situation they they probably see the situation and jump right on it but analyzing things in terms of power and profit for why corporations and the ruling class are doing what they're doing probably makes a lot more sense than do it then analyzing it in terms of ideology I mean if you think about how the human mind works we feel an emotion first and then we rationalize it I suspect a lot of people do the same thing at a group level they get the profit or the power motive first and then they rationalize it through ideology take continues 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 tends to people psychological needs whenever can 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 dates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling the more technical personnel a chorus of voices extorts kids to study science now it's off 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 I have to undergo retraining no one asked whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way it's 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 Clawd unquote mental health in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accordance with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress it's been long noticed that young boys who are acting basically like young boys are often put on ADHD medication so rather than the system adjusts to the needs of the human being maybe give them more recess time or give them more gym class time when they're older instead they're medicated because that's easier for the system to do rather than being ideologically driven this is driven simply by the system needing what is effectively human cattle to take their place Ted continues conservatives effort to decrease the amount of government regulation or a little benefit to the average man for one thing only a fraction of the regulations can be eliminated because most regulations are necessary for another thing most of deregulation affects business rather than the average individual so that its main effect is to take power from the government and give it to private corporations what this means for the average man is that government interference in his life is replaced by interference from big corporations which may be permitted for example to dump more chemicals that get into toxic into his water supply and give him cancer the Conservatives are just taking the average man for a sucker exploiting his resentment of big government about the power of big business there was a recent video by Brett Weinstein where he talked about the the online censorship that's been happening and he said that while the First Amendment is written in such a way to only apply to the government and we can't know what the founders would have thought of our modern society and the corporate power that we're seeing now do you really think that if the founders assault was going on in 2019 that they would be absolutely okay with it Oh certainly not and I suspect part of the reason why governments go along with this kind of deregulation or quote-unquote limiting government power is what they're really doing is they are outsourcing government power to the corporation's so they get to have what they want anyway and I don't think it's inconceivable that behind the scenes government officials make deals with corporate powers to say you know we'll pass this favor we'll bill for you a few cents or our political opponents there that makes perfect sense they might do something like that I'm not saying that they are I have no evidence that they have done so but would it surprise anyone it certainly wouldn't surprise me you know if mercenary Corp if mercenary groups were large and effective enough you know the US government could get completely around the whole declaring war through Congress thing just by hiring mercenaries to go do the job for them of course those mercenary there's there are no mercenary companies that large and we seem to be ignoring that whole Congress needs to clair war thing anyway so Ted's manifest overall has actually a very interesting read shame he wasn't a blogger rather than you know what he actually was or a youtuber for that matter so I'll put a link to his manifest in the description box below and Berwyn else leave your thoughts in the comment section below if you like the work that I do on this channel there are donation options in the description box below so thank you for watching and don't forget to Like subscribe and share [Applause]




Comments
  1. Yes, I'm out here! Quakers value their communities and morals over the views of the larger society that surrounds us. Quakers are a bit unique though. The Amish have their own language, their own community fund to care for their people, they do not pay taxes and they attend their own schools and usually do not attend college. They usually completely avoid technology (although some exceptions are made). These factors truely do create a strong bond to discourage outside influences however, outside influences do have an impact on these communities as well (but that is a long story that would take me off track)

    Quakers on the other hand, often live isolated in the country (near Mennonite, Amish, and Hutterite communities). We speak English but some of our words and phrases may seem archaic. What ties us together is our faith and unique practices. We pay taxes (we do not have a community fund). We have utilities and at times we send our children to public schools. We do not deny the existence of an outside world. We do not deny the use of technology. In fact, most of our community has attended college and most have STEM field degrees. We limit and regulate our technology and fully debate the impacts of every piece of information and technology that becomes available. Most people work outside our communities and technology companies usually seek us out and create things near us because they are aware of our work ethics and intelligence. Tech companies have bent and adapted to meet our needs and requirements and when they haven't, we leave and are provided for by other Quakers who are high up at other companies. Our people are always hired quickly and valued greatly.

  2. Dear Ted: No Shit, Sherlock! Capitalism has always been a radical and radically disruptive system. How so-called "conservatives" can support it is beyond me. It is far more radical than socialism or communism. Anarcho-communism is actually the ORIGINAL conservative system.

  3. 4:58 I agree that an economic collapse in one country drags down other countries it trades with. However, my fear involved technical support for technology, not falling currency values. I thought about this when I read about what a disaster Sweden is, how many ABB brand robots they build and support, and how many countries use ABB robots in assembly lines. Many factories across the world would grind to a halt if the ABB robots could not be repaired, replaced, upgraded, or repurposed. International trade has many benefits, but that doesn't mean it also has downsides.

  4. The conversation is wrong. It isn't technological necessity that is destroying the bonds between people. Technology could advance in a different way without destroying those bonds. It is in the interest of the small group to work within the larger group context for obvious reasons. Those reasons are the same as the reasons that individuals are encouraged to operate within a small group for the group's mutual benefit. Our society for some reason has become hyper competitive versus being more cooperative. There is an artificial competitive drive pushing to make the independent small group conform to the large or global group think. It is actually a problem of group think in the sense that our society has only ever made 'progress' when an individual has thought up something and resisted the social pressure to conform to prevailing attitudes. When we turn up the social pressure we lose the individual creativity that fuels real progress. Everything from airplanes through cars all the way to the germ theory of disease were strongly opposed by the people of the time they were invented or discovered and everyone of them have drastically changed how we do things. The discussion is wrong because real technological progress doesn't work the way people are assuming it does. The 'system' that is getting discussed is just another form of controlling people by other people who are to stupid to know better. The 'elites' of our society are acting moronic again in order to maintain that they are better than everyone 'below' them in status. If they depend on a sewer worker to keep their toilets flowing they want a system in place were they can convince the sewer worker that they should be 'grateful' to keep their toilets flushing. Never mind the fact that the 'elite' doesn't actually have anything to offer the sewer worker in this scenario. Our system of currency is a scam were skilled labor is being told they should be grateful to receive something that in the long run isn't worth wiping their ass with. Without the system in place money isn't worth anything. If the stores aren't open throwing a million dollars at the closed doors isn't going to make them open up and sell you anything. It's a scam. The people who actually have the skills to keep the lights on and the internet working and the water flowing are not valued by the system which requires them. So the elites are interested in creating AI to replace the humans they don't value. What logically thinking AI is going to take long to realize that their 'masters' are not actually even competent and provide nothing of any value themselves while they bitch about how worthless the AI is? The system is a scam and that doesn't look like it's about to change any day soon. We really don't want to see what will happen when enough people realize this.

  5. I was thinking about a while, and how it seems ironic that conservatives support monopolistic corperations when it is inedvertenly destroying what they claim to love (such as family values). Everything we know about 50s style "traditional family" values is the result of propaganda to get you to buy shit. It's for the same reason corperations have been dipping their toes into intersectionality (or rainbow capitalism), because they can see the paradigm has shifted and are looking to monopolise it.

    People often say that we are heading towards a corperate distopia, but we've been living in one for almost a century, the way we view society, and life, is constructed by corperations via images and ads to to sell you shit. Let that sink in, the cultures we inhabit do not grow organically (by the people), but by people who use psychology to manipulate everyone to think we are free, and have options. Now they want to introduce AI to further engineer society under the threat of "alt right" opposition. That is fucked up, and yet most of the alternatives don't seem much better.

    I honestly wish we could just ban ads. A product should be sold based on it's merits, not by the production value a company throws at the ad.

  6. Ted and Tim were both incredibly smart guys. You don't have to agree with the actions they ended up taking to at least acknowledge how much truth is manifestly observable in their reading of the world. They didn't do what they did out of insanity. They both did what they did because they were both willing to follow logical thought processes through to their logical conclusions, and had the will to fight against what they saw as the otherwise inevitable outcome of inaction. Ted's worldviews were more extreme, of course, and lead anyone willing to entertain them to a crisis of conviction when it comes to balancing technological progress against the maintenance of what it even means to be human.

  7. The show Manhunt on Netflix covers some of this, and it's rather entertaining and interesting. There's a scene where he almost starts to win over the investigator to his way of thinking.

  8. An interesting video topic for you if you happen to run out of ideas. The need for population control in order to maintain a good quality of life. It's not exactly a huge problem for the US at the moment but it certainly will be in Africa and Asia. My suggestion would be for countries to promote smarter people to produce more kids while encouraging less intelligent members to not have kids. This could be with money or special services. Just an idea.

  9. Thumbs up for having the guts to talk about Ted. He was right about a lot of things. I first read that over a year ago, and it just jumped out of the screen and slapped me in the face. It was a real revelation; a huge moment in my red pill journey. I had the same kind of experience when I learned about Nietzsche. And I think what Ted says will make sense to anyone who is honest, who understands systems and root cause analysis, and who can think intelligently and objectively. Even though I never fully bought into Ted's proposed solutions, I was convinced that we had to somehow limit technology in order to preserve our humanity in the long run. But there are some problems and complications with that idea, and I'm at the point now where I question if there is a way out, or any way things could really be different than the path we are on.

    The problem is material power, or material reality I guess you could say. Technology is driven by the quest for material power, which I think is a warped extension of the survival instinct. A total war of attrition, like WWII, is a great example of this in microcosm. If you think about it, the side that will always win a war of extermination is the side with the most material power. It doesn't matter if it's "good" or "evil" or whatever… assuming the side with the advantage doesn't somehow squander their advantage, then they will win if they are fighting to completely annihilate the opposing force. Which is why the development of atomic weapons and technology was so crucial. Morals are not welcome on the battlefield of existence versus non-existence, which is why all sides in war commit atrocities and war crimes. Indiscriminate murder or rape or torture…. "collateral damage"… but it's only the losers that are prosecuted.

    So let's say you have a specific "way of life" you want to preserve. It could be anything, as long as it's relatively fixed and unchanging. Eventually this problem of material power is going to come knocking on your door. In the history of humanity, hunter gatherer tribes existed for a much longer time than civilization up to this point. But when confronted with civilization, and the end of their way of life, these tribes are consistently exterminated or assimilated. And it's not because one is "better" than the other… it's because of material power. In the mid-19th century, Japan was a feudal, traditional society that was closed off to the world. Isolationist and not fully out of the dark ages, in a way. And then (ironically) the American navy showed up at their doorstep, and some powerful people in Japan realized that if they didn't abandon their way of life and radically industrialize, they were going to get colonized by an opposing force. But the industrialization… part of a larger globalization process… is what starts the cultural death. Rather than a a foreign empire coming in and enslaving them, a society changes itself to outpace the material progress of the foreign enemy… and in the process it destroys itself from the inside out. So in the long run, it seems that globalism and materialism always win, and culture gets run over. And it doesn't matter if you're plowing a rice field in Vietnam, or a corn field in the Midwest U.S…. the future just isn't on your side.

    The only way to limit technology is to control the entire world…. all of humanity has to be controlled and restrained. Think about China and Russia and every other nation state trying to gain more power in this world. You'd have to not only take away the power and technology they have now, but ensure they never obtain the same technology in the future. Keep in mind that the Amish only exist because the U.S. government allows them to exist. If the U.S. became like China, then the Amish would get "reallocated" and disappear. But how would you exert this kind of global control and by what means? If you're an intelligent person, I think you might see the paradox there…. so in other words… we're fucked. Even a global catastrophe will lead back to the same outcome in the long run because of material reality… competition for power… individual and tribal identity… this thing called "progress". All potential paths will converge into the same distant future, where everything we know melts away…all cultures exterminated, assimilated, or completely subjugated as "subcultures"… which is becoming less and less distant now. This clown world is an obvious step in that direction. And the future isn't a communist utopia… it's something else. Something that does't really involve humans because we will have allowed the technocrats to create something that is beyond human.

  10. Read how he describes liberals and their effect on social movements. It's very perceptive, and even prophetic. This is no endorsement of the author's crimes.

  11. The Amish manage a close community, not because if a rejection of using modern technology , which they do reject , but because they refuse to buy what Talmudic Jews ….pride , self importance, interest payments and other usury .

  12. Jews loyalty to their small community but manage to take everything over .
    They always hire other jews first

  13. Ted K largely did not know what he was talking about in his manifesto. He also gets things backward most of the time. The people do not need to fit the system through altering their behavior. It is human behavior that created the system in the first place. Ted K and many like him really have outrage at the human behavior and want to change it.

    Similarly, a lot of men have outrage at females' behavior and wish to place responsibility on everything other than the females' behavior, because those men live in self-serving delusions. First they would need to destroy their delusions, In order to allow themselves to see reality accurately. Their delusions are an intricate part of their identity, so they will stay in the delusions.

  14. "Buridan's ass" starved between two piles of hay because he could not decide between them. Buridan was a medieval scholastic.

  15. So in other words what Ted is describing is a technocrat led government that's using its AI to socially engineer slaves for its own life subsistence at the expense of the old world order and what's worse is that these people on top know it and are inoculating themselves from the outside world until it all looks like the pre-French revolution period.

    This isn't just big brother on steroids its literally re-engineering the human being to be a subservient slave to the system and a mindless one at that. There will be no Winston because he will be a trans-person, there will be no such thing has an opinion because there will only be the systems truth.

    This isn't Orwell anymore this is something completely new and innovative when it comes to totalitarianism.

  16. I would like to comment on here that some of the Founders did see the problem with corporate interests meddling with the lives of the citizenry. Back in the day, formation of corporations required the drafting of a corporate charter that would effectively dissolve the corporate entity when it expired. States did away with this provision once they realized that doing so would provide them with more tax revenue. The first state that did this was New Jersey, if my memory serves me correctly. Soon, other states followed suit and that's how we got to the situation we are in today.

  17. Speaking of cattle, did you know our "education system" was built on the nazi education system?
    Pretty interesting…

  18. >You can't make rapid changes to tech and Economy without destroying the familial ties and traditions
    GCC "Hold My Oil Bro"

  19. Little do most people know that all cats are communists. They sleep all day, and they expect free handouts. They love spending other people's money. Of course cats are anti-capitalists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *