patrick.net

NuttBoxer says

tanked says

Technology can be used for good or bad

Actually, technology has negatives and positives on it's own. Never something I'd have thought in the past, but after reading that speech I mentioned, I definitely see it now. I think smartphones are one of the best examples of a technology with upside that mainly benefits those seeking control, and is detrimental to almost everyone else.

That's a great example of technology able to be used for good or bad. They got the capabilities of a PC into a pocket sized device - which in itself is benign. But it is being used to spy and control - by technocrats. Hence, technocrats are the problem, not technology.

tanked says

Hence, technocrats are the problem, not technology.

A very old problem:
A spear - used to hunt food (good), but also used to murder people (bad).

richwicks says

Even a murderous asshole can be right. His solution was crazy, but perhaps his thinking wasn't.

His "thinking" led him where he ended up. Which ultimately proves that it was shit. Attempts to find some tasty morsels in a pile of shit are, shall we say, unsanitary.

tanked says

That's a great example of technology able to be used for good or bad. They got the capabilities of a PC into a pocket sized device - which in itself is benign. But it is being used to spy and control - by technocrats. Hence, technocrats are the problem, not technology.

In the speech, the guy pointed to computers as issuing in an age of information. Good because we can learn about almost anything, bad because we've all become masters of none. But it's not just information about random topics, it's our information as well. In the past, generally the only people who knew anything about you were people who knew you first-hand. In the present almost anyone can get their hands on all kinds of data on you with little to no effort. This naturally favors those who collect data over those who don't.

New technology doesn't just make something easier, it fundamentally changes the world around us. Some of the change can be good, some will be bad. Some groups will benefit, for other groups it will be detrimental.

Here's a link to the speech:
https://samim.io/p/2019-12-16-five-things-we-need-to-know-about-technological-change/?source=patrick.net

I believe, at it's logical conclusion, technology will become the bane of our existence. Let's take the following scenario...

1 and only 1 country has "The Bomb" and can destroy all other countries and peoples at the touch of a button.

Technology will be used as a weapon that will control those who cannot get ahold of it. Where is most new tech done? Who funds it? Who controls it? It will enslave us all. Just just think about the possibilities of programmable digital currency.

WineHorror1 says

I believe, at it's logical conclusion, technology will become the bane of our existence. Let's take the following scenario...

1 and only 1 country has "The Bomb" and can destroy all other countries and peoples at the touch of a button.

Technology will be used as a weapon that will control those who cannot get ahold of it. Where is most new tech done? Who funds it? Who controls it? It will enslave us all. Just just think about the possibilities of programmable digital currency.

I’m pretty sure the US is already close to that. Pretty sure that we have some version of a satellite based anti missle system and it’s probably why the Russians spend so much money and effort into trying to hack our various systems.

Let’s not forget that Hunter Biden and Soros were funding BioLabs in Ukraine for researching gain of function of bird and bat flus. Why were the labs there? Well, it’s a notoriously corrupt country at the literal edge of western civilization, plenty of deniability of culpability for any accidents or leaks. When Putin put those labs in jeopardy, Papa Biden got PISSED and committed the USA to a proxy war in Ukraine with us supply the weapons so the poor Ukrainians can fight for us.

If he only prevents the next pandemic or two with his invasion, Putin could still be considered the hero.

WineHorror1 says

I believe, at it's logical conclusion, technology will become the bane of our existence....

Technology will be used as a weapon that will control those who cannot get ahold of it. Where is most new tech done? Who funds it? Who controls it? It will enslave us all. Just just think about the possibilities of programmable digital currency.

I think it already has. Consider that the debt based currency/economy, fractional reserve banking, the stock market and even strong central governments are forms of technology that have been utilized by the globalists to enslave the rest of the world through debt, brute force, and wealth disparity. They invented and perfected these technologies to perpetuate their control. Their control is nearly complete and practically unbreakable. The most destructive technology of all is the propaganda used to divide us all which prevents us from uniting to usurp their control. The propaganda is now so strong that people are literally begging to be commanded.

FuckTheMainstreamMedia says

WineHorror1 says

I believe, at it's logical conclusion, technology will become the bane of our existence. Let's take the following scenario...

1 and only 1 country has "The Bomb" and can destroy all other countries and peoples at the touch of a button.

Technology will be used as a weapon that will control those who cannot get ahold of it. Where is most new tech done? Who funds it? Who controls it? It will enslave us all. Just just think about the possibilities of programmable digital currency.

I’m pretty sure the US is already close to that. Pretty sure that we have some version of a satellite based anti missle system and it’s probably why the Russians spend so much money and effort into trying to hack our various systems.

Yet another example. Nuclear power - Good, Nuclear bomb - Bad.

Technology is from learning, plain and simple. What one does with it is the real question - Technocrats are the technology abusers by definition. Technology is the only reason we left the cave.

tanked says

Technology is from learning, plain and simple. What one does with it is the real question - Technocrats are the technology abusers by definition. Technology is the only reason we left the cave.

You say that having read the speech I linked to? Just wondering since I completely in your camp before reading that, would be interested to learn if it hits you the same way.

NuttBoxer says

tanked says

Technology is from learning, plain and simple. What one does with it is the real question - Technocrats are the technology abusers by definition. Technology is the only reason we left the cave.

You say that having read the speech I linked to? Just wondering since I completely in your camp before reading that, would be interested to learn if it hits you the same way.

It didn't hit me in any particularly meaningful way, only reinforcing that the problem is technocrats not technology. As he says, too important to be left in the hands of Bill Gates, perhaps the most noteworthy technocrat of all.

Having read the full article linked in the OP here are some thoughts:

What if the MK Ultra CIA mind control experiments that Ted was part of put the idea that technology is evil into his head just like in the movie Inception? He seems extremely well reasoned on nearly everything he states except for one glaring omission, he seems to fail to reconcile the fact technology is a human creation with his demonization of technology. If technology is dehumanizing and humans create technology, what does that say about humans? Therefore if you take his reasoning (and the false idea that technology is evil) to the logical conclusion, then the only way to eliminate the influence of technology is to eliminate people, or at least the people who create the technology. So Ted was not crazy, he just believed a lie and then acted on that belief.

It also occurred to me that this thread is paralleling the discussion of evil thread https://patrick.net/post/1344347/2022-03-28-the-discussion-of-evil-patnet-thread-ve#comment-1830760

Ted is saying technology is evil, others are saying Ted is evil. What if they both are partially correct?

PeopleUnited says

Ted is saying technology is evil, others are saying Ted is evil. What if they both are partially correct?

Ted as "partially" evil? Killing and maiming people with strewn about booby traps is 100% evil.

tanked says

It didn't hit me in any particularly meaningful way, only reinforcing that the problem is technocrats not technology. As he says, too important to be left in the hands of Bill Gates, perhaps the most noteworthy technocrat of all

That isn't a coincidence. Bill is very rich and can fund a lot of sick shit. This is the problem...sick ass rich people with sick as motivations. They will always fund and own the tech. Tech cannot be trusted for this reason. You and I cannot stop it. End of oil and coal may be the only things that can end it.

HeadSet says

Killing and maiming people with strewn about booby traps is 100% evil.

Agreed, his actions as described are 100% evil. But that does not mean Ted is not capable of good. I don’t know of anyone who was not capable of good, and every person (almost) has some redeeming qualities.

WineHorror1 says

That isn't a coincidence. Bill is very rich and can fund a lot of sick shit. This is the problem...sick ass rich people with sick as motivations. They will always fund and own the tech. Tech cannot be trusted for this reason.

I'm going to dispute this.

Technology is being democratized. Nobody sees this, but it's obvious it's happening. It's easier to code today, you can own an extremely powerful computer for under $100, you can have 1000's of people accessing this machine, you can store 120 GB on a $25 SD card.

Compare that to 50 years ago. You had access to a multi-million dollar machine, through a terminal, on a 300 baud dial up line (if you had the money to buy such nonsense) and it was a little more powerful than the little toy computer I was given 10 years later when I was 9.

Tech is topping out. I'm using a 7 year old computer right now and it's probably more powerful than the device you're using now, with more storage, more processors, and more memory. This cost under $1,000 and I'll probably be using it for the next 5 years. I couldn't do that from 1980 to 1988, not even as a kid, much less as a professional that HAD to use a computer.

In 2050, I doubt the average user of some device will have a device that is significantly more capable than what I bought 7 years ago although it will cost practically nothing and will be significantly smaller, and run on 1/10th the electricity. Technology won't be able to be controlled. Honestly, it can't be controlled now. People have locked themselves into 3rd party systems because it seemed easier and cheaper at the time. The cost will be driven to 0 in time, and it will be point and click for maintenance and setup.

richwicks says

WineHorror1 says

That isn't a coincidence. Bill is very rich and can fund a lot of sick shit. This is the problem...sick ass rich people with sick as motivations. They will always fund and own the tech. Tech cannot be trusted for this reason.

I'm going to dispute this.

Technology is being democratized. Nobody sees this, but it's obvious it's happening. It's easier to code today, you can own an extremely powerful computer for under $100, you can have 1000's of people accessing this machine, you can store 120 GB on a $25 SD card.

Compare that to 50 years ago. You had access to a multi-million dollar machine, through a terminal, on a 300 baud dial up line (if you had the money to buy such nonsense) and it was a little more powerful than the little toy computer I was given 10 years later when I was 9.

Tech is topping out. I'm using a 7 year old computer right now and it's p...

Yes. The whole technology is bad idea is equivalent to an argument that all matter is bad, since all wars were fought using matter as weapons, therefore no matter = no war.

A good slogan would be (as a twist on the gun slogan), technology does not enslave people, technocrats do.

tanked says

A good slogan would be (as a twist on the gun slogan), technology does not enslave people, technocrats do.

That's why my comment started with Bill Gate's sick ass shit that he funds.

tanked says

technology does not enslave people, technocrats do.

True.

richwicks says

Tech is topping out. I'm using a 7 year old computer right now and it's probably more powerful

Also True. I see no need to upgrade my rig these past 5 years. Whereas in the 2000s and early 2010s, if 2-3 years went by, it was a new video card at least.

richwicks says

WineHorror1 says

That isn't a coincidence. Bill is very rich and can fund a lot of sick shit. This is the problem...sick ass rich people with sick as motivations. They will always fund and own the tech. Tech cannot be trusted for this reason.

I'm going to dispute this.

Technology is being democratized. Nobody sees this, but it's obvious it's happening. It's easier to code today, you can own an extremely powerful computer for under $100, you can have 1000's of people accessing this machine, you can store 120 GB on a $25 SD card.

Compare that to 50 years ago. You had access to a multi-million dollar machine, through a terminal, on a 300 baud dial up line (if you had the money to buy such nonsense) and it was a little more powerful than the little toy computer I was given 10 years later when I was 9.

Tech is topping out. I'm using a 7 year old computer right now and it's p...

Computer power? @richwicks, you're one of the smartest people on this forum. I agree with almost everything you write. Computer power is not even close to all the most destructive tech out there. Although, I guess it is driven by it. You may have a point. BUT, look where they are going now, medicine, regulations and currency. I won't make an argument and say those 3 are tech but, they are funded by the rich. Take for instance what think tanks do and who funds them. No doubt Covid and all that transpired was dreamed up in a think tank. I would go so far as to say the WEF is a type of think tank. As is Davos and the Bilderberg group.

The Overton window was getting too big, for the first time in 50 years there isn't a brand new technology (fax, microcomputer, internet, cell phone, smart phone) to profit massively from, the only place to squeeze big time wealth is from...


... the middle class.

They will own nothing, and be happy.

tanked says

It didn't hit me in any particularly meaningful way, only reinforcing that the problem is technocrats not technology.

So which technocrats do you blame for the printing press moving relationships away from the interpersonal skills needed for story-telling, towards more cold, calculated analysis? What about the tractor. It's the main reason local economies stopped being self-reliant, because the farmer had to borrow to pay for it, taking money that normally was invested back into the local economy, and sending it to big banks. Which technocrat is to be blamed there?

NuttBoxer says

tanked says

It didn't hit me in any particularly meaningful way, only reinforcing that the problem is technocrats not technology.

So which technocrats do you blame for the printing press moving relationships away from the interpersonal skills needed for story-telling, towards more cold, calculated analysis? What about the tractor. It's the main reason local economies stopped being self-reliant, because the farmer had to borrow to pay for it, taking money that normally was invested back into the local economy, and sending it to big banks. Which technocrat is to be blamed there?

Written records didn't enslave humanity. That is the definition of the start of history and the end of prehistory. Should we have stayed at 3200 BC level tech? Even speaking and language is technology. If you really want to go back to the true beginning of tech it's the ape man living in the cave. Or even further if you don't want any tech at all, before he figured out that the cave shelters him from the rain.

Pointing out the pros and cons of what occurred since the invention of the written record is not equivalent to saying that it automatically enslaved everyone. Verbal story telling was still allowed, and still is. Just have to have the individual ambition to do so.

Being enslaved, or not, is about the choice of the individual. So if you want to ban farmers from being able to buy tractors, or prevent it's invention, then the technocrat is you.

Also it's the big banksters as you pointed out, no secret they are technocrats (not to this site). A sound money economy wouldn't stop tech it would flourish more so.

WineHorror1 says

Computer power? @richwicks, you're one of the smartest people on this forum.

Don't be so insulting to other people on this forum :)

WineHorror1 says

Computer power is not even close to all the most destructive tech out there. Although, I guess it is driven by it. You may have a point. BUT, look where they are going now, medicine, regulations and currency.

The problem as I see it is we have a very complacent population that MIGHT see the danger of our oligarchs, but hasn't been fucked by them yet, so I'm kind of looking forward to the fucking.

People won't act unless they have to, unless they are forced to.

We just got screwed by a fake pandemic, it was cover to PURCHASE the loyalty of several companies - that's what the "covid relief" actually did, and our medical establishment fucked us as well. I'm talking to a guy (quite sparingly) who is a fairly famous biologist, who 2 years ago said that he couldn't conceive that researchers would bury cures, I reminded him of what he said and he's had to rethink it I believe.

Trust in the authorities is going away, and they never deserved it in the first place.

WineHorror1 says

Take for instance what think tanks do and who funds them. No doubt Covid and all that transpired was dreamed up in a think tank. I would go so far as to say the WEF is a type of think tank. As is Davos and the Bilderberg group.

Today, we have better information than ever. I have some confidence in what will come from that. People are archiving information in the expectation that the Internet might go dark.

Google, Facebook, and Twitter are designed for CONTROL - they impose censorship, they skew public opinion, and try to drive it. That's falling apart and that's hopeful. There's idiots whining about "these guys are censoring, something has to be done" - yeah, people have to leave these platforms. The government is DRIVING this shit, they aren't going to help.

Here's my viewpoint now. We have an illegitimate government, filled with criminals, and a judicial system that allows it. Propaganda isn't going to go away, censorship isn't going to go away, but all this is voluntary. These cages people can walk out of at any time.

We have to build a parallel internet, and I can see it's being built right now. People think they can't run a server - sure they can. They're $100.

I think we're looking at tough times ahead, but the reality is we don't need the criminal syndicate that has seized control our governments, they need us. I think people are finding their power, finally.

richwicks says

I think we're looking at tough times ahead, but the reality is we don't need the criminal syndicate that has seized control our governments, they need us. I think people are finding their power, finally.

I have seen many groups spring up in response to the mandates in particular. They are very active online and in person.

The bright side of the dangerous and utterly ineffective vaxx is that it convinced millions of people to become political right now. They realized that the corruption personified by Fauci is a lethal threat to us all.

Patrick says

richwicks says

I think we're looking at tough times ahead, but the reality is we don't need the criminal syndicate that has seized control our governments, they need us. I think people are finding their power, finally.

I have seen many groups spring up in response to the mandates in particular. They are very active online and in person.

The bright side of the dangerous and utterly ineffective vaxx is that it convinced millions of people to become political right now. They realized that the corruption personified by Fauci is a lethal threat to us all.

There's been a lot of positives in the last few years in my opinion.

There's 500 political prisoners in jail right now that were protesting what is increasingly being shown to be an illegitimate president. His incompetence is just a cherry on top. The constant lying of Big Tech is great too - they keep claiming TOS violations to do censorship, and it's obvious. The propaganda media system has lost control.

The most difficult thing is getting people to acknowledge a problem, well, a LOT of people can see it now where previously they would just deny it.

I should just come up with a list of all the bullshit of our media in the last decade.

I thought about making a board game called "conspiracy" or something like that, which would be similar to Trivial Pursuit, but the trivia would all be buried facts - like Victoria Nuland's conversation, or who Kyle Rittenhouse actually shot, who Darrell Brooks is, which intelligence officials lied about Hunter Biden's laptop being Russian disinformation, etc. Each card would have to have a QR code that links on the net that proves it's true.

Anybody want to work on it?

Anybody know what company did the security for the WTC complex? Remember the Nayirah testimony? What black programs came out of the Church Committee? Who was Paul Manafort's business partner? What was he convicted of? It would be fun AND educational!

@richwicks your board game sounds cool. Have you considered doing a kickstarter for it?

tanked says

Written records didn't enslave humanity. That is the definition of the start of history and the end of prehistory. Should we have stayed at 3200 BC level tech? Even speaking and language is technology. If you really want to go back to the true beginning of tech it's the ape man living in the cave. Or even further if you don't want any tech at all, before he figured out that the cave shelters him from the rain.

Pointing out the pros and cons of what occurred since the invention of the written record is not equivalent to saying that it automatically enslaved everyone. Verbal story telling was still allowed, and still is. Just have to have the individual ambition to do so.

Being enslaved, or not, is about the choice of the individual. So if you want to ban farmers from being able to buy tractors, or prevent it's invention, then the technocrat is you.

Also it's the big banksters as you pointed out, no secret they are technocrats (not to this site). A sound money econ...

All these words, but you didn't tell me which technocrats are to blame, or are we all the technocrats since most of us suck at story-telling and are much better at reading? That's basically what you imply, that if technology hasn't improved our lives, it our own fault. What about the guillotine? Seems to illustrate Postman's point pretty well. But you would say a technocrat is to blame?

I completely disagree with your position that technology is only good, and those who disagree want to live in caves. That's the same kind of argument rabid supporters of Ukraine use, or experimental humans who pushed the shot, or BLM, etc. Technology and it's impact is far more complex than you give it credit for.

Shaman says

@richwicks your board game sounds cool. Have you considered doing a kickstarter for it?

I'm fucking lazy as shit so I need to be done with it, before I actually propose it.

I'll do it though. What I'd need help with it confirming every claim. It would be hilarious to make.

As an experienced conspiracy theorist, it's all about finding bits and pieces of facts, and then putting it together to make a picture. Such a game would allow people to do it far more quickly. You only come across a new and interesting fact occasionally - the trick is remembering what you came across.

Like I read about the Leviathan discovery in Israel for oil. Then I found out Genie Energy made a deal to mine the oil resources in the Golan. I later found out who as on the Strategic Advisory Board:

https://governamerica.com/documents/genie-energy/?source=patrick.net

Then Syria suddenly got in the news and Obama out of the blue said "Assad better not use chemical weapons!!!" out of seemingly nowhere. Then chemical weapons got used in Ghouta. Then the war broke out, then Bana al-Abed became a star of the war. The Douma Chemical attacks had whistle blowers from the OPCW explaining there was no chemical weapons attack in Douma.

So you have all these facts, but can you be certain they are all absolutely connected?

A game that just gave you a barrage of different facts would allow people to experience what being a conspiracy theorist is like, without having to constantly picking up bits and pieces of information - and instead have them handed to them.

Like one question would be "name 4 members of Strategic Advisory Board of Genie Energy". Another "Where is the Leviathan energy deposit". Another "When was the Leviathan energy deposit discovered" and so on. Just lay out all the facts, and let people lose sleep over it later on :D

NuttBoxer says

tanked says

Written records didn't enslave humanity. That is the definition of the start of history and the end of prehistory. Should we have stayed at 3200 BC level tech? Even speaking and language is technology. If you really want to go back to the true beginning of tech it's the ape man living in the cave. Or even further if you don't want any tech at all, before he figured out that the cave shelters him from the rain.

Pointing out the pros and cons of what occurred since the invention of the written record is not equivalent to saying that it automatically enslaved everyone. Verbal story telling was still allowed, and still is. Just have to have the individual ambition to do so.

Being enslaved, or not, is about the choice of the individual. So if you want to ban farmers from being able to buy tractors, or prevent it's invention, then the technocrat is you.

Also it's the big banksters as yo...

But you said it yourself, what technocrat is to blame for big bank usury, when they are run by technocrats. Are you confused?

So you want to ignore all the other examples, guessing because you don't have an explanation, and focus on this one. Fine. Do you believe people should not be compensated for the technology they create? A tractor is a complex machine, and you can't make it out of plastic. So this technology requires a substantial investment. That has nothing to do with anyone, it's simply a fact of the tractors existence. A tractor also gives the farm the ability to quickly produce more food using less manpower. I'll refer you to Steinbeck for that outcome. Also a fact of the tractor's existence. Banks are not technocrats, they are lenders to farmers who don't want to lose their farms, so they expand. If anything you could try and blame the farmers themselves, but are you really going to point the finger at someone investing in their career that feeds their family? The banker has always been there, always lending, since the beginning of economics when they literally stored money in your caves.

Technology has benefits AND drawbacks. If you attempt to always blame man, you ignore the fundamental shifts in thinking and living that have accompanied almost every technological advancement since the wheel. Postman did spend 30 years studying technology, I think his ideas show a deeper understanding than most of us have.

I have family in Iowa who've been farming for over 100 years. Many have branched off into other work because the family is so huge. Reunions there - we take over a golf course for the entire day: We call it the (Surname)-Open.

But plenty are still farming and they are anything but poor.

NuttBoxer says

Technology has benefits AND drawbacks.

No one would disagree with you. The point I would most try to make is...technology is going to get to a point where the technocrats will actually be able to enslave you. At that point, what will be your opinion of technology? My fear is that the bad results of technology will win out.

We've got to move away from SaaS, centralized servers, and a bunch of other things.

The internet ain't what it was, and really the issue is monopolies and centralization everywhere, not just the 'net. We have some major decentralizing tech here. Ironically, the collection of data allows big heavy actors to interfere at smaller and smaller levels of the economy than ever before. Also, like airlines, these FAGATs are heavily dependent on government subsidy and clients. Amazon wouldn't be able to do Prime if not subsidized by USPS.

Wish there was a site that had all this encapsulated in one place.

NuttBoxer says

So you want to ignore all the other examples, guessing because you don't have an explanation, and focus on this one. Fine. Do you believe people should not be compensated for the technology they create? A tractor is a complex machine, and you can't make it out of plastic. So this technology requires a substantial investment. That has nothing to do with anyone, it's simply a fact of the tractors existence. A tractor also gives the farm the ability to quickly produce more food using less manpower. I'll refer you to Steinbeck for that outcome. Also a fact of the tractor's existence. Banks are not technocrats, they are lenders to farmers who don't want to lose their farms, so they expand. If anything you could try and blame the farmers themselves, but are you really going to point the finger at someone investing in their career that feeds their family? The banker has always been there, always lending, since the beginning of economics when they literally stored money in your cave...

Bankers are technocrats - banking is technology, they use technology to exploit people, always have. Even the paper notes they'd issue is technology.

This whole discussion is stupid. Do you know what consciousness is? The ability to perceive and process and learn. Without consciousness you aren't even alive. What causes technology? Perceiving and processing and learning. You cannot even have life without having technology.

Unabomber was a nutjob. No wonder he fought against life itself in more ways than one. If he was sane at all he'd be waking people up to what technocrats are up to - like many in alt media try to do.

tanked says

Unabomber was a nutjob. No wonder he fought against life itself in more ways than one. If he was sane at all he'd be waking people up to what technocrats are up to - like many in alt media try to do.

Just what media tries to "wake people up"?

The establishment's ONLY job is to keep them asleep. There's no 4th estate, it's nothing more than the propaganda for the 4th Reich.

Shaman says

Why were the labs there?

Cheap labor.

Booger says

Shaman says

Why were the labs there?

Cheap labor.

Because a PHd biologist couldn't migrate like an MH13 thug, drug runner or human smuggler could..

They were there to avoid treaty. You know this as well as I do. This was biological weapons development.

Sounds like you just love your tech way too much. Like many here I work in SW, I'm literally surrounded by this shit 8 hours a day. And like many here, I have my home projects. But unlike you I'm not swooned by the siren song. I don't have a cellphone, regularly shut off my wifi to help us minimize the amount of radiation we're exposed to, and more and more agree with my aunt, that computers are evil.

Just because you can't imagine life without gurgle/fakebook/snapple/micropenis doesn't make your viewpoint reality. It just makes you a slave to your tech.

Happy Ted Kaczynski day.

Not for his deeds, but his clarity.



The man struggled with every piece of Postmodernism and broke it down, up to and including Transmaxxing (!!!), which he rejected.