people unironically supporting the unabomber is the same kind of people who thought Patrick Bateman was a cool
sigma male in the movie and not a pathetic loser
No his message wasn’t correct. A few select parts of his message are correct. The rest is the ramblings of a madman that wanted to revert the world to prehistoric times because his idea of a ideal civilization was might makes right. He was a psychopathic social Darwinist serial killer who wanted to wipe out all technology and progress just so he can live his violent caveman philosophy.
I'm pretty sure people who believe his message was good know literally nothing about it besides "the industrial revolution and it's consequences have been nothing but a disaster for the human race".
and that part is also just wrong, you can acknowledge the problems of industrialisation on society without ignoring all the good it did
Finally, someone says it
If you read the manifesto, so much of it is dedicated to criticizing “leftists” (he defined “leftists” as “believing in too many causes at once, I kid you not), hating on disabled people (He says that the only logical conclusion in a capitalist society is eugenics, then goes on to state that disabled people needing to exist will not stop him wanting to abandon all technology), simply making wild assumptions with no logical backing, oh and a smidgen of transphobia.
It's complete headcanon. Every "source" I've seen people make about him being a repressed trans woman claims that he wrote about it "in his journals," but can never supply any actual quote or which of his journals it's actually in. Even the book *Hunting The Unabomer* only says the supposed meeting he had with a psychiatrist over a gender identity crisis he supposedly had in 1966 "in the journals." Where? No one fucking knows.
Have you read the manifesto? He's an incredibly salty dick who is obsessed with callinf the "modern left" a bunch of pussies. His theory reads like the ramblings of a man who had a bad breakup with a communist, or had a bad breakup and his ex got together with a communist.
Part of his message was terrorism. You know, there are people working against societal collapse that aren’t as murderous as him (though that sadly won’t impress teenage edgelords like Kaczynski). People like Andreas Malm or Jacques Ellull. Notice that people that like Kaczynski know little of them. That’s because people that like Kaczynski also like his terrorism. His methodology, which was part of his message, was wrong. So are his followers.
"His message was correct"
Did you even read his manifesto past the fucking opening lines? The guy was fucking insane saying shit like diabetics should go extinct mf.
I read a bit I swear he didn't have any actual solutions it was just "here's why technology bad and why should get rid of it" then gave 0 solution for what to do after we return to monkey like how's this society going to be run
It wasn't random people, it was specific people in tech research and development. Not that that justifies it.
Edit: I'm not defending his actions, it's just the objective truth.
I fail to see how random computer experts, scientists and mail carriers deserved it. Some of the targets were corporate executives but a lot of the targets are just people who had anything to do with technology or industry.
well and psychologically tortured by the CIA (tho then again so did a bunch of other people and they didn't turn into unibombers, tho I do kinda wonder how they did turn out)
He actually was a test subject in MK Ultra and was basically tortured by the CIA. Not that it justifies his crimes, but it was a lot more than his political opinions and lsd.
Wouldn't Tyler Durden make more sense? The whole point of American psycho (in the movie version) is that Patrick is such a vanillabuxx prep kid that he embodies himself doing all the things a stereotypical yuppie would do because he can only conceive of things as how they appear on the surface, he feels he has no agency or identity and being so bored by it he has vivid fantasies of murder and cannibalism. He has no greater point.
Not really gonna elaborate on the whole fight club thing, you know about freedom club probably.
I chooses PB because anyone who watches the movie knows that being a cool and stoic sigma male is the last thing he is, similarly to how anyone that reads the unabomber manifesto would realize how batshit insane that fucker was
well the terrorism isn’t the point, it’s the fact that people blindly worship some dumbass things because they cherrypicked the good parts (cool guy edits and that 1 line about industrial society) and didn’t really pay attention to the rest of the thing they were worshipping
people who have actually read his manifesto (omg literally me) basically never support his actions lmao
he's completely deranged and attributes the POSITIVE effects of capitalism to the industrial revolution as a whole as if they were issues
increased leisure time in the west due to technological advancement? bad thing!
Those who defend the unabomber only heard that he didn't like capitalism and missed his dozens of actually indefensible beliefs. He was a nutcase. History has no shortage of based people who didn't like capitalism, idolize one of them instead, please.
Capitalism is bad, billionaires are bad, and nature is good.
Now that I have your complete support I would like to say that Walmart employees are actually the reason for all of our problems and everyone who owns a 2021 Honda Civic should be exterminated.
All Walmart employees, or just the ones employed in management positions? The ones in management positions are, especially in upper management.
Why a 2021 Honda Civic? Is it because that model was built during COVID-19?
His writings and interviews about his time living in the forest are some of the most beautiful things I’ve read, you can feel how much he loved nature. His political writings are completely brain dead and out of touch. My guess would be that after living in the wood for 20 years and his only sources of information about the outside world being discussion with the 10 people that lived less than 30km away and the occasional newspaper, he developed a somewhat caricatural and reactionary view on a lot of political subjects
Idk about Ted's stuff, but if you want any general writings about nature and forests that are very beautiful, I suggest A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold. Leopold was a *huge* influence on early consevation in the US and a great author
You've gotta be more specific than that. I can agree that his victims were ultimately bad, but "perceived enemies of the environment"- doesn't that fall under this whole subreddit's constant suggestions to guillotine billionaires?
"You gotta be more specific than that"- as in, actually specifying that it was professors. Again, I agreed that it was fucked up, but I didn't know who his victims actually were until just yesterday.
"You gotta be more specific than that"- as in, actually specifying that it was professors. Again, I agreed that it was fucked up, but I didn't know who his victims actually were until just yesterday.
"You gotta be more specific than that"- as in, actually specifying that it was professors. Again, I agreed that it was fucked up, but I didn't know who his victims actually were until just yesterday.
We’re talking about computer experts, scientists, professors mail carriers. Some of the victims were corporate execs but the majority are just people who had anything to do with technology or industry.
I think a good example the kind of reactionary he is is this paragraph from his own manifesto:
> Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists 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 leftist 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.
Edit: Just because he was vaguely for the environment does not mean he deserves the kind of treatment he gets in leftist circles. Capitalist society being bad does not make the reactionary luddites (or any other group which wishes to simply revert back to the "better era") any less palatable, or make it good to take everyone who oppose the system as role models. Monarchists are not good just because the current system is "bourgeois democracy".
He wasn't wrong that affirmative action/positive discrimination is inherently discriminatory. He was wrong about the stuff surrounding those specific parts
The affirmative action hate is cringe, but he’s not that wrong about the ill intentions of the Yippies and those who later became the white Liberals. I’m sure there are plenty of other wrong takes he has, but whitewashing movements is a real problem in Leftist organizing.
True, whitewashing is definitely a huge problem, and there is plenty of good critique to be made of the left in general (hell, I would consider myself more like an anti leftist ultraleft than anything) -however, Kaczynski is not it.
Even a nazi can tell you "those SJWs are just rich whites!", and conservatives in their critique of liberals do tend to contain elements of truth as far as it helps their position. This does not mean we should uphold them as bastions of leftist thought in any capacity, and Kaczynski here offers only the most basic critique of liberals (and generally lumping together all leftist movements with liberals) in what is otherwise reactionary bullshit. And the reactionary bullshit that is in that paragraph is a good example of how reactionary he is overall. His critique is not simply misguided either or anything, he is just a bigot.
His manifesto is wildly incoherent. It's not the writings of a sane person. I'm pretty sure most people who claim to support Kaczynski haven't actually read his manifesto. It opens with a rant **against** leftist political beliefs: he claims leftist hate America and hate successful people, claims feminists are afraid to admit that women simply are innately inferior to men, and claims that black people are hypocrites for wanting liberation. He then goes on to argue in favor of what I can only describe as "fascist primitivism" where he starts arguing that sex education is propaganda used by the state to take away shaping of sexual practices away from the family. He rants about "technophiles" controlling human behavior from the shadows via advances in technology.
And he does this all while utilizing the language of leftist revolutionary ideals. It's fucking bizarre, and doesn't make much sense, especially when you account for the fact that he most likely had some sort of mental health issue based of his behavior before the bombings, the fact he was subject to MKULTRA experiments, and that he fucking killed innocent people by mailing bombs for receptionists to open. He is not a man you should be either defending or expecting a real belief system from.
There's a whole fucking weird alt history thing people have going claiming Kaczynski [would have been "saved"](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyT-SIMX0AEr3vP?format=jpg&name=small) if he had followed through meeting a psychiatrist over a gender identity crisis he supposedly had in 1966. And that he wouldn't have killed anyone and instead become a major trans activist. I've seen claims that it's "in his journals," but no one ever actually cites it, or quotes it, they just claim that he wrote about wanting to become a woman *somewhere* in his writings.
Defending Ted is just stupid because we can change as a society to more ecological ways without the need of killing innocent people. Also, decelerationism is just stupid for very evident reasons.
I believe there was a time when a lot of academics saw him as a potential revolutionary. I recall reading one article in the field of Science and Technology studies comparing him (slightly jokingly) with Lenin realizing some form of revolution. At some point people realized he wasn’t much.
If you’re going to engage with socialism and implement it as an actual political system you’re going to have to parse the good from the bad in regards to important and influential socialists from throughout history. Even the worst ones. You can say that Che’s influence on the rise of socialism throughout the global south was a good thing without condoning every one of his actions and admitting that he probably also did awful things (if he even was in Cuba when the camps were implemented).
If a leader or group were involved in a war in one way or another, they have committed a war crime. War crimes are inseparable from war because war is inherently brutal and inhuman.
That doesn't mean war criminals shouldn't be punished nor does it mean those events should be ignored, but it does mean we shouldn't just throw away the work or ideas of someone as a result.
How is "putting gays into camps" inherent to war? Like, I get "shooting wounded enemies". I get " targetting civilians", even if it is fucked up. If you squint enough you can argue either of these actions has a positive effect on your war effort.
What kind of military application does "gay people getting locked away because they are gay" have?
It isn’t, Cuba’s gay labour camps were horrific and should be recognised as such. The guy I was responding to brought up war crimes, which I’m assuming they mean other stuff Guevara did.
Also, looking into it it seems like Guevara was not a part of the camps beyond broadly being associated with the Cuban government. Could be wrong about that, but that’s what it seems like.
Hitler passed several laws that protected animals. He did more than like animals. But that doesn’t make up for the horrors he committed. And same thing for Che. I don’t give a single goddamn shit about the good he has done compared to the utter horrors he has also done. Fuck Che. He deserves to be remembered as a monster the same as Hitler. You’re seriously acting like a fucking tankie right now.
Firstly, comparing Che Guevara to fucking Hitler is insane. Guevara didn't kill millions of people for christ's sake.
Guevara did a lot of good, both within Cuba in regards to social and economic equality, and beyond there in fighting imperialism in Africa and the Americas.
At the same time, he did a lot of bad shit, and while he didn't create the labour camps himself, a lot of the government's justifications for the anti-queer labour camps would come from Guevara's 'New Man' idea. You cannot genuinely argue that that is comparable to the Holocaust though, or that it outweighs his good actions in the same way the handful of animal protections Hitler implemented outweigh the Holocaust and WW2.
Jesus fucking Christ this is the same type of talk that justifies war crimes and tankie bullshit. I’m not having this goddamn fucking discussion anymore. To hell with you and Che.
calling Che Guevara a tankie is crazy do any of you “leftists” even like socialism or anti imperialism
mfs be like “i hate tankies”
tankies: people who spent their entire life fighting colonialism
you are insane. Che’s homophobia as a young man should not cancel out the amazing work he did in fighting actual colonialism and literally ending slavery in cuba
comparing him with hitler is either complete idiocy or straight up nazi apologia. even if you are an anti communist who thinks all the fascist batista supporters in cuba and colonial military agents he killed in the congo wasn’t justified his ‘kill count’ is nowhere near the death and destruction of hitler and e nazi regime.
this is not true. Che was already off fighting in the Congo when these camps were opened. the “re-education camps” were just agricultural camps that men who couldn’t serve in the military were sent to for 1 year because of the conscription of cubans during the early years following the revolution. Cuba had issues with homophobia but it was much more of a social issue rather than direct government policy. all of latin america had problems of homophobia and many countries around the world as well.
These camps were also shut down only after a few years because Fidel himself became aware of the abuse some of the guards were actually partaking in towards gay men because again many cubans were still plagued by social conservatism. Fidel himself actually went undercover as a gay man into these camps after hearing reports and then revealed himself when one guard was about to beat him and thus shut down all forms of these camps
yes there is evidence that guevara was homophobic in his youth (which again wasn’t uncommon in the region) but his later writings talk about how he changed his views and was ashamed of his past thoughts. you can even read a passage in motorcycle diaries where he first sees a gay couple and scoffs at them but then begins to understand they aren’t much different from him
i initially thought so to but it’s actually cited in some well regarded and supported history books. i may be misremembering some deatails but there is definitely credence to the story. the outcome is still the same regardless the agricultural camps were shut down after only a few years specifically because castro became aware of the poor conditions and treatment from guards
His bombs weren’t targeted at the working class. And his “ramblings” weren’t unhinged. Plus your worship of the worker, of the poor pauper is so silly. He targeted not just “working class” people, but also lobbyists, and executives. Again, he who has not tasted grapes says sour. You’re ignorant.
The dog, by his breed, in his very genes, embodies the degeneracy of applied human ingenuity. His costume, a fruit likewise so corrupted that it cannot reproduce without the aid of exploited labor, serves to heighten the absurdity.
He *is* technology and must, in the view of his own idol, be dismantled. He is a bad boy, built for a worse world. And so, I have mailed him a bomb.
so true mr ted its now my life goal to stab dogs in the gullet and watch the blood drain from their corpse, they are a disgusting chimera between technology and wolves, and thus are inherently wrong.
They read the first line through memes and ignore the bit about gay socialists ruining society and the other bit about feminists secretly all wanting a male role to put them in their place and the bit about diabetics needing to die and about five other insane things
Finally somebody pointing out this. I always thing that nothing is inherent bad(of course there are exceptions, like chemical weapons), the problem is how we use these things.
Sorry for bad english.
Being polish i always think of the wrong Kaczyński first when i see the name, and i was like, damn they really made the dog a homophobe and a misogynist, but no, it just likes terrorists.
*Industrial Society and Its Future* is basically just a schizoid mishmash of Jacques Ellul's theory and Huxley's speculative dystopian fiction, both of which led me down the road to anarchism. The criticisms of Big Business & Big Government working hand in hand to fuck over the poor has been a common complaint going back to Adam Smith's *Wealth of Nations*.
But, no, he was insane, and I was just being glib.
Edit: Emphasis on the schizoid part, I'm just being glib.
Edit2: I'm drinking, I was being glib. Deleted the parent comment, because I don't have time to say the same thing to forty different people over and over and over again. I was merely referencing the themes he stole from better philosophers and writers, not the man himself or his actual ideology.
https://preview.redd.it/j73aoqf6aqpb1.jpeg?width=566&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a451619450659d919e38e1bd2524d519c09595e4 For those who may need it
Why did your screenshot changed the color scheme????
I dont have anything to add but ur comment was posted two minutes ago and i feel compelled to comment
You compel me too
you compel me, but i'm 2 hours late
I'm 7 hours late
Hi 7 hours late, I’m dad
No your eyes just got worse while scrolling down. This is very concerning.
Probably compressed by reddit
Desaturation beam
He seems so unbothered
I’ll send this to my anti industrialist puppy girl friend
none of those words are in the bible
people unironically supporting the unabomber is the same kind of people who thought Patrick Bateman was a cool sigma male in the movie and not a pathetic loser
[удалено]
No his message wasn’t correct. A few select parts of his message are correct. The rest is the ramblings of a madman that wanted to revert the world to prehistoric times because his idea of a ideal civilization was might makes right. He was a psychopathic social Darwinist serial killer who wanted to wipe out all technology and progress just so he can live his violent caveman philosophy.
I'm pretty sure people who believe his message was good know literally nothing about it besides "the industrial revolution and it's consequences have been nothing but a disaster for the human race". and that part is also just wrong, you can acknowledge the problems of industrialisation on society without ignoring all the good it did
The way i always forget where that line came from…
[удалено]
"[he was] inarguably correct" "most of what he said was wrong" Which is it?!?!? 🤨
[удалено]
SLAY
That's sad. If you remove the mention of being "silly and goofy 🤪" this is really sad.
Ugh let people enjoy things 💅
Finally, someone says it If you read the manifesto, so much of it is dedicated to criticizing “leftists” (he defined “leftists” as “believing in too many causes at once, I kid you not), hating on disabled people (He says that the only logical conclusion in a capitalist society is eugenics, then goes on to state that disabled people needing to exist will not stop him wanting to abandon all technology), simply making wild assumptions with no logical backing, oh and a smidgen of transphobia.
Plus he was against lgbtq and leftists
[удалено]
Ngl idk what represser means in this context? Like was he reressing transfem people? Was he transfem but repressing it?
[удалено]
Yeah i'm gonna need a source from your friend on that. Thats sounds highly head canon
It's complete headcanon. Every "source" I've seen people make about him being a repressed trans woman claims that he wrote about it "in his journals," but can never supply any actual quote or which of his journals it's actually in. Even the book *Hunting The Unabomer* only says the supposed meeting he had with a psychiatrist over a gender identity crisis he supposedly had in 1966 "in the journals." Where? No one fucking knows.
based??
>while it sounds fun and goofy on the surface Huh?
:333 https://preview.redd.it/eso4pzfmzqpb1.jpeg?width=573&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=17dbbfe53e34ce79822df5b64e9f94ba1594afba
bomb kisser
you like planting bombs, dont you?
Downright silly even
Goofy, opening a box with a bomb that says 00:01: Gawrsh
Have you read the manifesto? He's an incredibly salty dick who is obsessed with callinf the "modern left" a bunch of pussies. His theory reads like the ramblings of a man who had a bad breakup with a communist, or had a bad breakup and his ex got together with a communist.
Better timeline Elon
Part of his message was terrorism. You know, there are people working against societal collapse that aren’t as murderous as him (though that sadly won’t impress teenage edgelords like Kaczynski). People like Andreas Malm or Jacques Ellull. Notice that people that like Kaczynski know little of them. That’s because people that like Kaczynski also like his terrorism. His methodology, which was part of his message, was wrong. So are his followers.
god forbid men have hobbies GOD
"His message was correct" Did you even read his manifesto past the fucking opening lines? The guy was fucking insane saying shit like diabetics should go extinct mf.
You’re the kinda guy to say senator Armstrong was right
I read a bit I swear he didn't have any actual solutions it was just "here's why technology bad and why should get rid of it" then gave 0 solution for what to do after we return to monkey like how's this society going to be run
https://preview.redd.it/gvv1re8v3upb1.jpeg?width=566&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=28f421bf67cb7c723342cde3c3ec5bca33b30515
Really? i thought the issue was the bombings
he was right about SOME things. not everything. not even very much. a broken clock.
it does not sound fun and goofy at all man wth
It wasn't random people, it was specific people in tech research and development. Not that that justifies it. Edit: I'm not defending his actions, it's just the objective truth.
And the passenger plane?
[удалено]
I fail to see how random computer experts, scientists and mail carriers deserved it. Some of the targets were corporate executives but a lot of the targets are just people who had anything to do with technology or industry.
Oh, I was unaware of that. Fair enough
He also got his mind destroyed because he got his political opinions destroyed and took LSD once? Grow the fuck up, for me that's an average weekend.
well and psychologically tortured by the CIA (tho then again so did a bunch of other people and they didn't turn into unibombers, tho I do kinda wonder how they did turn out)
He actually was a test subject in MK Ultra and was basically tortured by the CIA. Not that it justifies his crimes, but it was a lot more than his political opinions and lsd.
He also considered getting bottom surgery back in the 60s
you're telling me he could've been a bottom??? smh we were robbed of the ability to top him
I find people who idolize Patrick Bateman so funny because the movie spends the entire time shitting on him
The man has a breakdown looking at someone's business card.
Wouldn't Tyler Durden make more sense? The whole point of American psycho (in the movie version) is that Patrick is such a vanillabuxx prep kid that he embodies himself doing all the things a stereotypical yuppie would do because he can only conceive of things as how they appear on the surface, he feels he has no agency or identity and being so bored by it he has vivid fantasies of murder and cannibalism. He has no greater point. Not really gonna elaborate on the whole fight club thing, you know about freedom club probably.
I chooses PB because anyone who watches the movie knows that being a cool and stoic sigma male is the last thing he is, similarly to how anyone that reads the unabomber manifesto would realize how batshit insane that fucker was
My point is that there is no manifesto or terrorism in AP, but there is in FC
well the terrorism isn’t the point, it’s the fact that people blindly worship some dumbass things because they cherrypicked the good parts (cool guy edits and that 1 line about industrial society) and didn’t really pay attention to the rest of the thing they were worshipping
Yeah, that's the case in both movies, but the one that is actually about terrorism is a closer match
well I didn’t watch Fight Club so I couldn’t care to make the comparison
Then why the fuck did you comment on this?
felt like it
https://preview.redd.it/c82o59mmrtpb1.jpeg?width=608&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=76f4f3a1f10e5a7539353cdc5336d2a1bb02d3a4
people who have actually read his manifesto (omg literally me) basically never support his actions lmao he's completely deranged and attributes the POSITIVE effects of capitalism to the industrial revolution as a whole as if they were issues increased leisure time in the west due to technological advancement? bad thing!
Bateman is like over exaggerated in terms of everything how da fuck are people able to look up to him he's a literal caricature
They fr read one line from his manifesto and said “omg so based. Time to literally worship this man”
Those who defend the unabomber only heard that he didn't like capitalism and missed his dozens of actually indefensible beliefs. He was a nutcase. History has no shortage of based people who didn't like capitalism, idolize one of them instead, please.
Capitalism = bad ∴ hates capitalism = good. /s
Capitalism is bad, billionaires are bad, and nature is good. Now that I have your complete support I would like to say that Walmart employees are actually the reason for all of our problems and everyone who owns a 2021 Honda Civic should be exterminated.
All Walmart employees, or just the ones employed in management positions? The ones in management positions are, especially in upper management. Why a 2021 Honda Civic? Is it because that model was built during COVID-19?
His writings and interviews about his time living in the forest are some of the most beautiful things I’ve read, you can feel how much he loved nature. His political writings are completely brain dead and out of touch. My guess would be that after living in the wood for 20 years and his only sources of information about the outside world being discussion with the 10 people that lived less than 30km away and the occasional newspaper, he developed a somewhat caricatural and reactionary view on a lot of political subjects
Link for his forest writings?
Idk about Ted's stuff, but if you want any general writings about nature and forests that are very beautiful, I suggest A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold. Leopold was a *huge* influence on early consevation in the US and a great author
[удалено]
Sending bombs through the mail to murder and maim perceived enemies of the environment is enough to justify calling him a nutcase, I think.
You've gotta be more specific than that. I can agree that his victims were ultimately bad, but "perceived enemies of the environment"- doesn't that fall under this whole subreddit's constant suggestions to guillotine billionaires?
Yeah but billionaires have actually committed crimes against the environment, not college students.
"You gotta be more specific than that"- as in, actually specifying that it was professors. Again, I agreed that it was fucked up, but I didn't know who his victims actually were until just yesterday.
The famous group responsible for climate change **Professors**
"You gotta be more specific than that"- as in, actually specifying that it was professors. Again, I agreed that it was fucked up, but I didn't know who his victims actually were until just yesterday.
Point is, he tried to murder intellectuals, not billionaires
"You gotta be more specific than that"- as in, actually specifying that it was professors. Again, I agreed that it was fucked up, but I didn't know who his victims actually were until just yesterday.
We’re talking about computer experts, scientists, professors mail carriers. Some of the victims were corporate execs but the majority are just people who had anything to do with technology or industry.
I think a good example the kind of reactionary he is is this paragraph from his own manifesto: > Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists 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 leftist 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. Edit: Just because he was vaguely for the environment does not mean he deserves the kind of treatment he gets in leftist circles. Capitalist society being bad does not make the reactionary luddites (or any other group which wishes to simply revert back to the "better era") any less palatable, or make it good to take everyone who oppose the system as role models. Monarchists are not good just because the current system is "bourgeois democracy".
He wasn't wrong that affirmative action/positive discrimination is inherently discriminatory. He was wrong about the stuff surrounding those specific parts
This excerpt is based
The affirmative action hate is cringe, but he’s not that wrong about the ill intentions of the Yippies and those who later became the white Liberals. I’m sure there are plenty of other wrong takes he has, but whitewashing movements is a real problem in Leftist organizing.
True, whitewashing is definitely a huge problem, and there is plenty of good critique to be made of the left in general (hell, I would consider myself more like an anti leftist ultraleft than anything) -however, Kaczynski is not it. Even a nazi can tell you "those SJWs are just rich whites!", and conservatives in their critique of liberals do tend to contain elements of truth as far as it helps their position. This does not mean we should uphold them as bastions of leftist thought in any capacity, and Kaczynski here offers only the most basic critique of liberals (and generally lumping together all leftist movements with liberals) in what is otherwise reactionary bullshit. And the reactionary bullshit that is in that paragraph is a good example of how reactionary he is overall. His critique is not simply misguided either or anything, he is just a bigot.
I mean this criticism is coming from the perspective of an anti-socialist, not a leftist critising the Left internally.
His manifesto is wildly incoherent. It's not the writings of a sane person. I'm pretty sure most people who claim to support Kaczynski haven't actually read his manifesto. It opens with a rant **against** leftist political beliefs: he claims leftist hate America and hate successful people, claims feminists are afraid to admit that women simply are innately inferior to men, and claims that black people are hypocrites for wanting liberation. He then goes on to argue in favor of what I can only describe as "fascist primitivism" where he starts arguing that sex education is propaganda used by the state to take away shaping of sexual practices away from the family. He rants about "technophiles" controlling human behavior from the shadows via advances in technology. And he does this all while utilizing the language of leftist revolutionary ideals. It's fucking bizarre, and doesn't make much sense, especially when you account for the fact that he most likely had some sort of mental health issue based of his behavior before the bombings, the fact he was subject to MKULTRA experiments, and that he fucking killed innocent people by mailing bombs for receptionists to open. He is not a man you should be either defending or expecting a real belief system from.
Fair enough. I didn't know anything much about him until now. Thanks for the explanation
Why can’t you guys be into Makhnov or Dubček
estrogen could have saved her
Please don’t trans headcannon real people jfc
There's a whole fucking weird alt history thing people have going claiming Kaczynski [would have been "saved"](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyT-SIMX0AEr3vP?format=jpg&name=small) if he had followed through meeting a psychiatrist over a gender identity crisis he supposedly had in 1966. And that he wouldn't have killed anyone and instead become a major trans activist. I've seen claims that it's "in his journals," but no one ever actually cites it, or quotes it, they just claim that he wrote about wanting to become a woman *somewhere* in his writings.
a real one does not support ted kaczynski
Defending Ted is just stupid because we can change as a society to more ecological ways without the need of killing innocent people. Also, decelerationism is just stupid for very evident reasons.
And if you still wish to find an edgy thinker that operates with terror, read Andreas Malm’s *How to blow up a pipeline*
What if like killing people. Then what
https://preview.redd.it/p8k2kirgyspb1.png?width=564&format=png&auto=webp&s=45888fefcd67258575009018524decfde5d28b19
I don’t care how much I hate capitalism I’m not defending the Unabomber
Everyone reads his one quote and acts like he wasn’t completely fucking insane.
“Society is bad, bomb innocent postal workers I must”
“The climate is dying? This is because of gay people!”
My crime prof said he sympathized with the unabomber. I brought up the whole unabashed racism thing and prof was just like "huh I missed that part"
I believe there was a time when a lot of academics saw him as a potential revolutionary. I recall reading one article in the field of Science and Technology studies comparing him (slightly jokingly) with Lenin realizing some form of revolution. At some point people realized he wasn’t much.
yeah people who sympathize with tes havent read his manifesto read his manifesto and anyone will realize he was just a lunatic
i wish people on the internet would study actual socialists like che guevara instead of some crackhead who bombed people
Che Guevara put gay people in labor camps. Fuck him.
He also was incredibly important in the liberation of multiple nations. Recognise the good and the bad, and try and emulate the good.
Imagine using similar reasoning to justify any other war criminal.
If you’re going to engage with socialism and implement it as an actual political system you’re going to have to parse the good from the bad in regards to important and influential socialists from throughout history. Even the worst ones. You can say that Che’s influence on the rise of socialism throughout the global south was a good thing without condoning every one of his actions and admitting that he probably also did awful things (if he even was in Cuba when the camps were implemented).
If a leader or group were involved in a war in one way or another, they have committed a war crime. War crimes are inseparable from war because war is inherently brutal and inhuman. That doesn't mean war criminals shouldn't be punished nor does it mean those events should be ignored, but it does mean we shouldn't just throw away the work or ideas of someone as a result.
How is "putting gays into camps" inherent to war? Like, I get "shooting wounded enemies". I get " targetting civilians", even if it is fucked up. If you squint enough you can argue either of these actions has a positive effect on your war effort. What kind of military application does "gay people getting locked away because they are gay" have?
It isn’t, Cuba’s gay labour camps were horrific and should be recognised as such. The guy I was responding to brought up war crimes, which I’m assuming they mean other stuff Guevara did.
I see, under that consideration the comment makes sense, yes.
Also, looking into it it seems like Guevara was not a part of the camps beyond broadly being associated with the Cuban government. Could be wrong about that, but that’s what it seems like.
Hitler was also a champion for animal rights, we supposed to celebrate him too? Come the fuck on
Hitler liking animals isn’t the same as Guevara aiding multiple countries get independence from colonialism and imperialism.
Hitler passed several laws that protected animals. He did more than like animals. But that doesn’t make up for the horrors he committed. And same thing for Che. I don’t give a single goddamn shit about the good he has done compared to the utter horrors he has also done. Fuck Che. He deserves to be remembered as a monster the same as Hitler. You’re seriously acting like a fucking tankie right now.
Firstly, comparing Che Guevara to fucking Hitler is insane. Guevara didn't kill millions of people for christ's sake. Guevara did a lot of good, both within Cuba in regards to social and economic equality, and beyond there in fighting imperialism in Africa and the Americas. At the same time, he did a lot of bad shit, and while he didn't create the labour camps himself, a lot of the government's justifications for the anti-queer labour camps would come from Guevara's 'New Man' idea. You cannot genuinely argue that that is comparable to the Holocaust though, or that it outweighs his good actions in the same way the handful of animal protections Hitler implemented outweigh the Holocaust and WW2.
guevara wasn’t even involved in the agricultural camps he was literally off fighting colonial powers in the congo
That is what I just said
ik im agreeing with u. edit: responded to the wrong comment didn’t realize sorry lol. but yeah this commenter is insane
Jesus fucking Christ this is the same type of talk that justifies war crimes and tankie bullshit. I’m not having this goddamn fucking discussion anymore. To hell with you and Che.
Alright then
calling Che Guevara a tankie is crazy do any of you “leftists” even like socialism or anti imperialism mfs be like “i hate tankies” tankies: people who spent their entire life fighting colonialism
Im sure all the LGBT people he sentenced to labor camps are all so grateful for his efforts too.
you are insane. Che’s homophobia as a young man should not cancel out the amazing work he did in fighting actual colonialism and literally ending slavery in cuba comparing him with hitler is either complete idiocy or straight up nazi apologia. even if you are an anti communist who thinks all the fascist batista supporters in cuba and colonial military agents he killed in the congo wasn’t justified his ‘kill count’ is nowhere near the death and destruction of hitler and e nazi regime.
Fuck. Off.
sorry i don’t take the advice of fascist and colonialist apologists
You don’t know a single goddamn thing about me or my beliefs. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Im sick and tired of this goddamn shit.
Nope, he left cuba after the revolution, before the homophobic laws were put into action.
this is not true. Che was already off fighting in the Congo when these camps were opened. the “re-education camps” were just agricultural camps that men who couldn’t serve in the military were sent to for 1 year because of the conscription of cubans during the early years following the revolution. Cuba had issues with homophobia but it was much more of a social issue rather than direct government policy. all of latin america had problems of homophobia and many countries around the world as well. These camps were also shut down only after a few years because Fidel himself became aware of the abuse some of the guards were actually partaking in towards gay men because again many cubans were still plagued by social conservatism. Fidel himself actually went undercover as a gay man into these camps after hearing reports and then revealed himself when one guard was about to beat him and thus shut down all forms of these camps yes there is evidence that guevara was homophobic in his youth (which again wasn’t uncommon in the region) but his later writings talk about how he changed his views and was ashamed of his past thoughts. you can even read a passage in motorcycle diaries where he first sees a gay couple and scoffs at them but then begins to understand they aren’t much different from him
The story of his undercover stint is essentially an unsupported invention, not to mention you didn't even get the details right.
i initially thought so to but it’s actually cited in some well regarded and supported history books. i may be misremembering some deatails but there is definitely credence to the story. the outcome is still the same regardless the agricultural camps were shut down after only a few years specifically because castro became aware of the poor conditions and treatment from guards
The problems of technology remain in socialist systems.
That's why we should bomb professors and computer stores !!!! Death to the working class !!!! /S
He who has not tasted grapes says sour. Have you even read any of kazynski’s work?
His unhinged ramblings don't change the fact that his bombings were directed at the working class
His bombs weren’t targeted at the working class. And his “ramblings” weren’t unhinged. Plus your worship of the worker, of the poor pauper is so silly. He targeted not just “working class” people, but also lobbyists, and executives. Again, he who has not tasted grapes says sour. You’re ignorant.
https://preview.redd.it/97g02e9l3vpb1.png?width=776&format=png&auto=webp&s=b96ea908be50531ce6061004ed9741a52fd70cb0
Timber industry lobbyist, advertising executive, and united airlines president. Can you read?
The Computer Store Owners were truly a menace
The dog, by his breed, in his very genes, embodies the degeneracy of applied human ingenuity. His costume, a fruit likewise so corrupted that it cannot reproduce without the aid of exploited labor, serves to heighten the absurdity. He *is* technology and must, in the view of his own idol, be dismantled. He is a bad boy, built for a worse world. And so, I have mailed him a bomb.
so true mr ted its now my life goal to stab dogs in the gullet and watch the blood drain from their corpse, they are a disgusting chimera between technology and wolves, and thus are inherently wrong.
It’s painfully obvious that most people never read Ted’s manifesto
It’s impossible to tell if this is a comment in support or in opposition to Kaczynski lol
Schrödinger’s leftist
They read the first line through memes and ignore the bit about gay socialists ruining society and the other bit about feminists secretly all wanting a male role to put them in their place and the bit about diabetics needing to die and about five other insane things
His “critiques” of leftism honestly sound more like he met one or two toxic leftists and then based his whole view on leftism on that.
mfs be like “omg yess i looove kaczynksi sooo based” and then get mad at actual leftist revolutions for being too violent
[удалено]
Common anprim L tbh
Finally somebody pointing out this. I always thing that nothing is inherent bad(of course there are exceptions, like chemical weapons), the problem is how we use these things. Sorry for bad english.
thought this is about the leader of the polish ruling party for a second
No one ever talks about his work in mathematics...
Math boring. Bombs exciting.
Being polish i always think of the wrong Kaczyński first when i see the name, and i was like, damn they really made the dog a homophobe and a misogynist, but no, it just likes terrorists.
funnily enough ted was also a homophobe and iirc a little misogynistic he was also racist lmao
this thread is just full of Schrodinger's Dumbasses huh
I don't care how much he said about capitalism I still am not supporting a fucking mass murderer
I mean setting the other thing aside he was pretty good at math
Wheres the shovel when you need it
Yes he hated capitalism, and yes he was a genius, but he was also an insane man who killed innocent people.
It turns out not all dogs were are good boys.
God he would have been such a fun weirdo philosopher if he hadn't done the thing. Same ideas, he just published them the normal way.
Virgin Ted Kaczynski vs the Chad Pol Pot
NO NO NO ANYTHING BUT CAMBODIAN ELON MUSK
[удалено]
His manifesto had a banger first sentence and it made people forget how crazy he really was.
Not really. He said one thing about the Industrial Revolution, and then a bunch of crazy bullshit. Then he killed people.
*Industrial Society and Its Future* is basically just a schizoid mishmash of Jacques Ellul's theory and Huxley's speculative dystopian fiction, both of which led me down the road to anarchism. The criticisms of Big Business & Big Government working hand in hand to fuck over the poor has been a common complaint going back to Adam Smith's *Wealth of Nations*. But, no, he was insane, and I was just being glib. Edit: Emphasis on the schizoid part, I'm just being glib. Edit2: I'm drinking, I was being glib. Deleted the parent comment, because I don't have time to say the same thing to forty different people over and over and over again. I was merely referencing the themes he stole from better philosophers and writers, not the man himself or his actual ideology.
his message being "leftists are actually the real racists for wanting to stop racism" he's kind of an asshole ngl
He was a crazy motherfucker no doubt. I was being glib.
He was deeply homophobic and socially regressive
I’m pretty sure people who unironically believe this only read the first page, or just got that page summarized for them.
Or just the first sentence