Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Madeline Taylor, PhD's avatar

Hi Slick, this is a wonderfully accurate description of the dynamics among a subset of humans, mostly men, whose self-esteem rests upon their sense of control over and influence upon others.

I agree that the accumulation of money serves the drive for interpersonal power. The sense that we can affect others is the basis for the need we all have to feel good about ourselves, to feel like we matter, like we're important.

Beneath the surface of men like the Koch brothers, Trump, Putin, Musk, and bunches of technocrats and autocrats, lies the broken hearts of little boys who were deprived of tenderness in their earliest relationships with mothers, fathers, nannies, etc.

They grew up determined not to care about that and They discovered that they could keep heartache and shame at bay by substituting toughness and an annihilating form of competition as the basis for self-esteem. Western culture has been shaped, for thousands of years, by these dynamics so boys like this step into a long line of autocratic role-models beginning with emotionally distant and insensitive parents, especially fathers, who humiliate and ridicule the inborn sensitivity of their little boys who might otherwise retain their inherent sweetness.

My suggestion is that we, collectively, observe how the taboo on tenderness destroys little boys before the age of three and exposes them to a culture of cruelty in which they must dominate or be humiliatingly dominated for the rest of their lives. Boys and girls absorb the gendered messages the culture, by way of the family first, sends them. As we individually and collectively alter our emotional stance towards our infants and toddlers we alter the character and values of the adults they will become.

Expand full comment
Stefano's avatar

Fantastic read! Awesome! Thanks!

But I disagree with one of the pillars of your conclusion:

"This isn’t just about breaking the Technate. It’s about making sure nothing like it can ever rise again."

This strikes me as ahistorical. Empires and civilizations do collapse, and then what remains is a decentralized patchwork of communities which slowly declines (in harmony with nature locally) until the next incarnation takes over. There are a few historical examples of federal empires or civilizations (ex. SE Asia or the natives of N. America) sustainably existing in a decentralized way, but eventually these fall to their neighboring empires expansion.

Like you I believe the revolution has already occurred and we're now in a transitional phase of consolidation in the illiberal age. And eventually a resistance will emerge and the system will fall apart, or at least cut off parts it can't control, because like you said, it's inevitable.

There are a lot of unknowns though. So I'd say it's unclear where we end up.

Sci-fi world presents us with black swans, and then there's God.

If I were to criticize your essay I'd say the omission of God, faith and meaning or purpose of life, these are going to be relevant going forward. There's also a curious debate about AI and the occult, but this is sci-fi world too.

Expand full comment
201 more comments...

No posts