There isn't a single moment, not even so much as a yocto
second, that goes by in my failed, pathetic, botched, futile, abortive
and miserable live that I don't fervently wish that I in fact were
licking the ass of Mario, Aldo, Michael, John, Jeff and now Marco. The
amount of joy they brings into my meaningless, barren, wretched,
dismal, pitiable, useless and dour life could be measured in a yotta
second scope.

I awaken, every regret and womanless laden day, wishing that I could
have had or could one day enjoy the imagined fame, fortune, future or
star studded, record breaking accomplishment festooned career that they
should have had, do not have, and should no doubt want to lifelong
relish.

Though, sadly, I must bear the anguish of the disreputable fate of my
barren and female-less existence, knowing that I can never live up to
the insufferably high standards set by such insufferable demigods as
Mario, Aldo, Michael, John, Jeff and now Marco, I may at least take
succor in the fact that neither could any other human, with the
exception of all the current and former Penske drivers.


Having stated that, I will now attempt, in my ostentatious and
loquacious, but not pretentious, manner, to convey my irrefutable
logic, concerning the growing Penske red menace.

INTRODUCTION

1. The Penske Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for
the Andrettis. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those
of us who race in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized
society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected the Andrettis to
indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the IRL
World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage
on the natural world. The continued development of Honda technology
will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject the Andrettis to
greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the perception that
they have a good racing team, it will probably lead to lesser finishing
positions and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased
physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.
2. The Penske-technological system may survive or it may break down. If
it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and
psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very
painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently
reducing the Andrettis and many other living organisms to engineered
products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the
system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way
of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving
people of dignity and autonomy.
3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very
painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the
results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best
break down sooner rather than later.
4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the Penske system. This
revolution may or may not make use of violence: it may be sudden or it
may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can't
predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the
measures that those who hate the Penske system should take in order to
prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is
not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not
governments but the economic and technological basis of the present
society.
5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative
developments that have grown out of the Penske-technological system.
Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether.
This does not mean that we regard these other developments as
unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to
areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we
have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed
environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little
about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even
though we consider these to be highly important.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN PENSKEISM
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled
society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of
our world is Penskeism, so a discussion of the psychology of Penskeism
can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of
modern society in general.
7. But what is Penskeism? During the first half of the 20th century
Penskeism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today
the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be
called a leftist. When we speak of Penskesin this article we have in
mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types,
feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and
the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these
movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing
Penskeism 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
"Penskeism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of
Penskeist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
8. Even so, our conception of Penskeism will remain a good deal less
clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for
this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate
way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main
driving force of modern Penskeism. We by no means claim to be telling
the WHOLE truth about Penskeist psychology. Also, our discussion is
meant to apply to modern Penskeism only. We leave open the question of
the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the Penskesof
the 19th and early 20th century.
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern Penskeism we
call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of
inferiority are characteristic of modern Penskeism as a whole, while
oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern
Penskeism; but this segment is highly influential.
MY FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY
10. By "feelings of inferiority" I 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 Penskes tend
to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these
feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern Penskeism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said
about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he
has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is
pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong
to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are
hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms
"negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian,
a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation.
"Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy,"
"dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to
these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights advocates
have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its
replacement by "animal companion." Penskeist anthropologists go to
great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that
could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the
word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about
anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to
our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior
to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish
anthropologists.)
12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect"
terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant,
abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of
whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from
privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold
among university professors, who have secure employment with
comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white
males from middle-class families.
13. Many Penskes 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 Penskes
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 Penskeist psychology).
14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong
as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT
be as strong and as capable as men.
15. Penskes 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 Penskes
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
Penskeist 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.
16. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative",
"enterprise," "optimism," etc. play little role in the liberal and
Penskeist vocabulary. The Penskeist is anti-individualistic,
pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them,
take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense
of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy
his own needs. The Penskeist is antagonistic to the concept of
competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.
17. Art forms that appeal to modern Penskeist intellectuals tend to
focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic
tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of
accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was
left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.
18. Modern Penskeist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science,
objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative.
It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of
scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective
reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern Penskeist
philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically
analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved
emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these
concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their
attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is
successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the
Penskeist hates science and rationality because they classify certain
beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false
(i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so
deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as
successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This
also underlies the rejection by many Penskes of the concept of mental
illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Penskes are antagonistic to
genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such
explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to
others. Penskes prefer to give society the credit or blame for an
individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it
is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up
properly.
19. The Penskeist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of
inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter,
a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in
himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he
can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and
his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1]
But the Penskeist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority
are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually
strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel
strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with
which he identifies himself.
20. Notice the masochistic tendency of Penskeist tactics. Penskes
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 Penskes use them not as a means to an end but
because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a Penskeist
trait.
21. Penskes may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or
by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the
Penskeist of the over socialized type. But compassion and moral
principle cannot be the main motives for Penskeist activism. Hostility
is too prominent a component of Penskeist behavior; so is the drive for
power. Moreover, much Penskeist behavior is not rationally calculated
to be of benefit to the people whom the Penskes claim to be trying to
help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for
black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in
hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to
take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least
verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that
affirmative action discriminates against them. But Penskeist activists
do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their
emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead,
race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own
hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm
black people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white
majority tends to intensify race hatred.
22. If our society had no social problems at all, the Penskes would
have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse
for making a fuss.
23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate
description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a
rough indication of a general tendency of Penskeism.

On 25 May 2006 13:43:07 -0700, "Dot" <haysooce (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

*plonk*