How'd he get this so wrong? What stopped him from just using the obviously more correct term liberal where he says leftist? If he were to do so, I could pretty much agree 100% with his analysis of modern """leftism"""
How'd he get this so wrong? What stopped him from just using the obviously more correct term liberal where he says leftist? If he were to do so, I could pretty much agree 100% with his analysis of modern """leftism"""
Other urls found in this thread:
Because he was a fucking idiot burger who thinks Democrats = "leftists"
Because he was actually talking about leftists, those being the New Left that he knew of in college. His critique is still valid for many leftists today. We can't pretend these types of people aren't actually part of our movement when they possibly make up the majority in the West. In reality they're just radical liberals, but they're still part of the leftist movement.
He was just using it as a general term. He subscribed to an obscure political ideology and was a math professor in his early 20's. Im pretty sure he knew the difference between Marxism and liberalism.
A lot of leftwingers dont like the parts where ted roasts the shit out of them because he completely has their number.
227. Our discussion of leftism has a serious weakness. It is still far from clear what we mean by the word “leftist.” There doesn’t seem to be much we can do about this. Today leftism is fragmented into a whole spectrum of activist movements. Yet not all activist movements are leftist, and some activist movements (e.g., radical environmentalism) seem to include both personalities of the leftist type and personalities of thoroughly un-leftist types who ought to know better than to collaborate with leftists. Varieties of leftists fade out gradually into varieties of non-leftists and we ourselves would often be hard-pressed to decide whether a given individual is or is not a leftist. To the extent that it is defined at all, our conception of leftism is defined by the discussion of it that we have given in this article, and we can only advise the reader to use his own judgment in deciding who is a leftist.
228. But it will be helpful to list some criteria for diagnosing leftism. These criteria cannot be applied in a cut and dried manner. Some individuals may meet some of the criteria without being leftists, some leftists may not meet any of the criteria. Again, you just have to use your judgment.
Haha, and what big talk of moralism, Ted can go and stuff his values into his ass.
221. Because of the restrictions placed on their thoughts and behavior by their high level of socialization, many leftists of the over-socialized type cannot pursue power in the ways that other people do. For them the drive for power has only one morally acceptable outlet, and that is in the struggle to impose their morality on everyone.
Bombing Ted's failure to understand class is why all the people he went after were scientists. Sure technology and science are destructive, but science and capitalism are sides of the same coin. Plus, he failed to kill that many people. If he had used better tactics and gone after capitalists, he would have been executed as a martyr in the freedom struggle. Think, what if Lee Malvo gone after billionaires? But now it's all over. There's nothing we can do.
Can't say I relate. And is Ted not enforcing his values by fighting against the enforcement of values? :thinking:
This Nietzschean stuff is just so painful to read. Do you seriously believe the goal of human existence is just to acquire power?
Kara: Don’t you think violence is violence?
In reference to my alleged actions you ask, “Don’t you think violence is violence?” Of course, violence is violence. And violence is also a necessary part of nature. If predators did not kill members of prey species, then the prey species would multiply to the point where they would destroy their environment by consuming everything edible. Many kinds of animals are violent even against members their own species. For example, it is well known that wild chimpanzees often kill other chimpanzees. See, e.g., Time Magazine, August 19, 202, page 56. In some regions, fights are common among wild bears. The magazine Bear and Other Top Predators, Volume 1, Issue 2, pages 28–29, shows a photograph of bears fighting and a photograph of a bear wounded in a fight, and mentions that such wounds can be deadly. Among the sea birds called brown boobies, two eggs are laid in each nest. After the eggs are hatched, one of the young birds attacks the other and forces it out of the nest, so that it dies. See article “Sibling Desperado,” Science News, Volume 163, February 15, 2003.
Human beings in the wild constitute one of the more violent species. A good general survey of the cultures of hunting-and-gathering people is The Hunting Peoples, by Carleton S. Coon, published by Little, Brown and Company, Boston and Toronto, 1971, and in this book you will find numerous examples in hunting-and-gathering societies of violence by human beings against other human beings. Professor Coon makes clear (pages XIX, 3, 4, 9, 10) that he admires hunting-and-gathering peoples and regards them as more fortunate than civilized ones. But he is an honest man and does not censor out those aspects of primitive life, such as violence, that appear disagreeable to modern people.
Thus, it is clear that a significant amount of violence is a natural part of human life. There is nothing wrong with violence in itself. In any particular case, whether violence is good or bad depends on how it is used and the purpose for which it is used.
So why do modern people regard violence as evil in itself? They do so for one reason only: they have been brainwashed by propaganda. Modern society uses various forms of propaganda to teach people to be frightened and horrified by violence because the technoindustrial system needs a population that is timid, docile, and afraid to assert itself, a population that will not make trouble or disrupt the orderly functioning of the system. Power depends ultimately on physical force. By teaching people that violence is wrong (except, of course, when the system itself uses violence via the police or the military), the system maintains its monopoly on physical force and thus keeps all power in its own hands.
Whatever philosophical or moral rationalizations people may invent to explain their belief that violence is wrong, the real reason for that belief is that they have unconsciously absorbed the system’s propaganda.
But the “democratic” system of the West has evolved mechanisms for deflecting rebellion that are far more sophisticated and effective than any that existed in the Soviet Union. It is a truly remarkable fact that in modern Western society people “rebel” in favor of the values of the very system against which they imagine themselves to be rebelling. The left “rebels” in favor of racial and religious equality, equality for women and homosexuals, humane treatment of animals, and so forth. But these are the values that the American mass media teach us over and over again every day. Leftists have been so thoroughly brainwashed by media propaganda that they are able to “rebel” only in terms of these values, which are values of the technoindustrial system itself. In this way the system has successfully deflected the rebellious impulses of the left into channels that are harmless to the system.
Are they? Was fascism not an expression of the technoindustrial system? Of course racial equality isn't a threat to capital or technological society, but both can get along just fine in its absence too.
Look dude. Ted is fucking smart and has thought about this shit while in prison way more than you.
1. What the System Is Not
Let's begin by making clear that the System is not. The System is not George W. Bush and his advisers and appointees, it is not the cops who maltreat protesters, it is not the CEOs of the multinational corporations, and it is not the Frankensteins in their laboratories who criminally tinker with the genes of living things. All of these people are servants of the System, but in themselves they do not constitute the System. In particular, the personal and individual values, attitudes, beliefs, and behavior of any of these people may be significantly in conflict with the needs of the System.
To illustrate with an example, the System requires respect for property rights, yet CEOs, cops, scientists, and politicians sometimes steal. (In speaking of stealing we don't have to confine ourselves to actual lifting of physical objects. We can include all illegal means of acquiring property, such as cheating on income tax, accepting bribes, and any other form of graft or corruption.) But the fact that CEOs, cops, scientists, and politicians sometimes steal does not mean that stealing is part of the System. On the contrary, when a cop or a politician steals something he is rebelling against the System's requirement of respect for law and property. Yet, even when they are stealing, these people remain servants of the System as long as they publicly maintain their support for law and property.
Whatever illegal acts may be committed by politicians, cops, or CEOs as individuals, theft, bribery, and graft are not part of the System but diseases of the System. The less stealing there is, the better the System functions, and that is why the servants and boosters of the System always advocate obedience to the law in public, even if they may sometimes find it convenient to break the law in private.
Take another example. Although the police are the System's enforcers police brutality is not part of the System. When the cops beat the crap out of a suspect they are not doing the System's work, they are only letting out their own anger and hostility. The System's goal is not brutality or the expression of anger. As far as police work is concerned, the System's goal is to compel obedience to its rules and to do so with the least possible amount of disruption, violence, and bad publicity. Thus, from the System's point of view, the ideal cop is one who never gets angry, never uses any more violence than necessary, and as far as possible relies on manipulation rather than force to keep people under control. Police brutality is only another disease of the System, not part of the System.
For proof, look at the attitude of the media. The mainstream media almost universally condemn police brutality. Of course, the attitude of the mainstream media represents, as a rule, the consensus of opinion among the powerful classes in our society as to what is good for the System.
What has just been said about theft, graft, and police brutality applies also to issues of discrimination and victimization such as racism, sexism, homophobia, poverty, and sweatshops. All of these are bad for the System. For example, the more that black people feel themselves scorned or excluded, the more likely they are to turn to crime and the less likely they are to educate themselves for careers that will make them useful to the System.
Modern technology, with its rapid long-distance transportation and its disruption of traditional ways of life, has led to the mixing of populations, so that nowadays people of different races, nationalities, cultures, and religions have to live and work side by side. If people hate or reject one another on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, etc., the resulting conflicts interfere with the functioning of the System. Apart from a few old fossilized relics of the past like Jesse Helms, the leaders of the System know this very well, and that is why we are taught in school and through the media to believe that racism, sexism, homophobia, and so forth are social evils to be eliminated.
No doubt some of the leaders of the System, some of the politicians, scientists, and CEOs, privately feel that a woman's place is in the home, or that homosexuality and interracial marriage are repugnant. But even if the majority of them felt that way it would not mean that racism, sexism, and homophobia were part of the System—any more than the existence of stealing among the leaders means that stealing is part of the System. Just as the System must promote respect for law and property for the sake of its own security, the System must also discourage racism and other forms of victimization, for the same reason. That is why the System, notwithstanding any private deviations by individual members of the elite, is basically committed to suppressing discrimination and victimization.
For proof, look again at the attitude of the mainstream media. In spite of occasional timid dissent by a few of the more daring and reactionary commentators, media propaganda overwhelmingly favors racial and gender equality and acceptance of homosexuality and interracial marriage.
The System needs a population that is meek, nonviolent, domesticated, docile, and obedient. It needs to avoid any conflict or disruption that could interfere with the orderly functioning of the social machine. In addition to suppressing racial, ethnic, religious, and other group hostilities, it also has to suppress or harness for its own advantage all other tendencies that could lead to disruption or disorder, such as machismo, aggressive impulses, and any inclination to violence.
Naturally, traditional racial and ethnic antagonisms die slowly, machismo, aggressiveness, and violent impulses are not easily suppressed, and attitudes toward sex and gender identity are not transformed overnight. Therefore there are many individuals who resist these changes, and the System is faced with the problem of overcoming their resistance.
2. How the System Exploits the Impulse to Rebel
All of us in modern society are hemmed in by a dense network of rules and regulations. We are at the mercy of large organizations such as corporations, governments, labor unions, universities, churches, and political parties, and consequently we are powerless. As a result of the servitude, the powerlessness, and the other indignities that the System inflicts on us, there is widespread frustration, which leads to an impulse to rebel. And this is where the System plays its neatest trick: Through a brilliant sleight of hand, it turns rebellion to its own advantage.
Many people do not understand the roots of their own frustration, hence their rebellion is directionless. They know that they want to rebel, but they don't know what they want to rebel against. Luckily, the System is able to fill their need by providing them with a list of standard and stereotyped grievances in the name of which to rebel: racism, homophobia, women's issues, poverty, sweatshops…the whole laundry-bag of "activist" issues.
Huge numbers of would-be rebels take the bait. In fighting racism, sexism, etc., etc., they are only doing the System's work for it. In spite of this, they imagine that they are rebelling against the System. How is this possible?
First, 50 years ago the System was not yet committed to equality for black people, women and homosexuals, so that action in favor of these causes really was a form of rebellion. Consequently these causes came to be conventionally regarded as rebel causes. They have retained that status today simply as a matter of tradition; that is, because each rebel generation imitates the preceding generations.
Second, there are still significant numbers of people, as I pointed out earlier, who resist the social changes that the System requires, and some of these people even are authority figures such as cops, judges, or politicians. These resisters provide a target for the would-be rebels, someone for them to rebel against. Commentators like Rush Limbaugh help the process by ranting against the activists: Seeing that they have made someone angry fosters the activists' illusion that they are rebelling.
Third, in order to bring themselves into conflict even with that majority of the System's leaders who fully accept the social changes that the System demands, the would-be rebels insist on solutions that go farther than what the System's leaders consider prudent, and they show exaggerated anger over trivial matters. For example, they demand payment of reparations to black people, and they often become enraged at any criticism of a minority group, no matter how cautious and reasonable.
In this way the activists are able to maintain the illusion that they are rebelling against the System. But the illusion is absurd. Agitation against racism, sexism, homophobia and the like no more constitutes rebellion against the System than does agitation against political graft and corruption. Those who work against graft and corruption are not rebelling but acting as the System's enforcers: They are helping to keep the politicians obedient to the rules of the System. Those who work against racism, sexism, and homophobia similarly are acting as the Systems' enforcers: They help the System to suppress the deviant racist, sexist, and homophobic attitudes that cause problems for the System.
But the activists don't act only as the System's enforcers. They also serve as a kind of lightning rod that protects the System by drawing public resentment away from the System and its institutions. For example, there were several reasons why it was to the System's advantage to get women out of the home and into the workplace. Fifty years ago, if the System, as represented by the government or the media, had begun out of the blue a propaganda campaign designed to make it socially acceptable for women to center their lives on careers rather than on the home, the natural human resistance to change would have caused widespread public resentment. What actually happened was that the changes were spearheaded by radical feminists, behind whom the System's institutions trailed at a safe distance. The resentment of the more conservative members of society was directed primarily against the radical feminists rather than against the System and its institutions, because the changes sponsored by the System seemed slow and moderate in comparison with the more radical solutions advocated by feminists, and even these relatively slow changes were seen as having been forced on the System by pressure from the radicals.
3. The System's Neatest Trick
So, in a nutshell, the System's neatest trick is this:
For the sake of its own efficiency and security, the System needs to bring about deep and radical social changes to match the changed conditions resulting from technological progress.
The frustration of life under the circumstances imposed by the System leads to rebellious impulses.
Rebellious impulses are co-opted by the System in the service of the social changes it requires; activists "rebel" against the old and outmoded values that are no longer of use to the System and in favor of the new values that the System needs us to accept.
In this way rebellious impulses, which otherwise might have been dangerous to the System, are given an outlet that is not only harmless to the System, but useful to it.
Much of the public resentment resulting from the imposition of social changes is drawn away from the System and its institutions and is directed instead at the radicals who spearhead the social changes.
You think capitalism, imperialism, and neocolonialism are liberal terms?
And you're opposed to collectivism?
How on Earth do you consider yourself a leftist, exactly?
Nothing to do with what I said.
Ok, I stopped reading with this - do any of the other posts actually address the seemingly incongruent notion that the media reflects the will of elites but the actions of elites do not?
If they run the thing, is it really a "disease" which is allowing them to get away with theft or is the propaganda simply a smoke-screen aimed at people who aren't elites?
everything to do.
It basically lays down, that even if there are racists or elites who disagree with the system. These people arent part of the system. They are seen as a diseases. And the system uses extremists activists groups who think they are rebelling against the system to get rid of the diseases.
In fact the left is actually the enforcer of the system.
Laughable. Enclosure and it's equivalents around the world (theft on the part of states and agribusiness) is necessary to transform peasants into proletarians who have no choice but to work for a wage. Without this theft, the "system" would not be able to expand in places like Bangladesh, the Amazon basin, and the Sahel and it would never have been able to get started in Britain in the first place for want of people desperate enough to work 15 hour days in unsafe conditions.
Seriously, nothing to do with what I said.
capitalism is egalitarian. Sorry. They want more black executives. They want more women CEO'S.
They want to open the borders so a brown mass of consumers can buy things.
To this system, racism, violence, fascism, extremism, etc. Its not part of the system.
And the system uses the left as enforcers to stamp out the disease while letting them think they are rebels.
What is the system? It gets more and more incoherent as you go on. It seems like a very silly abstraction.
Also consider eminent domain, without which all sorts of infrastructure that is absolutely essential to technological living wouldn't be able to be built on a large scale.
You're giving this phantasm of yours much too much agency.
Maybe it's because noone gives a shit about "MUH classic definition of leftism anymore because communism is dead and irrelevant. Stop trying to salvage the term 'left', nobody will ever care and it is completely irrelevant what the fuck you label yourself as.
A couple things:
1. Do you even know where you are?
2. These are really shallow readings of capitalism, and have nothing to do with economics. Idpol is largely a diversion, not a goal - women CEOs are a matter of optics. In the end, they don't preserve the system by filing their income taxes on time or paying workers decent wages - they preserve it by diverting from those class issues and onto their vaginas.
The "system" is fundamentally indifferent. At one point, racism very clearly was institutionalized in American capitalism. Violence still is. This isn't something they tend to freely admit, because if they did then the proles would ask why they weren't allowed to be violent.
Was Jesus part of the system? Did the system exist in 30 CE? The plot thickens.
The fuck was his problem?
Ted isn't an anprim. He dislikes industrial technology, and while that is poorly defined he certainly doesn't think that giving up on clothing and hand tools and language will make the world a utopia.
Also, the people Ted makes out to be the actual rebels (the reactionaries, the sexists, the racists) can also be made into what he thought the leftists were: enforcers of The System. The fascist who is a danger to The System today can quite easily be made into the impotent "rebel" tomorrow. Why Ted seems to thinks that The System only travels in one direction is puzzling. It's changed facades a lot more than once already, which renders his entire diatribe against it null and void.
They idealize primitive society, not chimps.
Not necessarily. I mean, Ted strikes me as pretty much the average Holla Forums poster, but in another time: STEM degree, subscribes to obscure (i.e. not normie-tier) ideologies and doesn't know the difference between Marxism and liberalism, or between an actual marxist praxis and the quasi-religion some people have made out of it. Being actually well versed in Marxism is asking too much from most people, even the relatively intellectual and even most self-declared "Marxists".
Rather than the system changing facades, I think what Ted didn't realize is that the contradictions within the current capitalist order (which he refers to through a catchy buzzword) are fundamentally economic and that identitarians pose a distraction from these material contradictions. You can not combat this moralist and identitarian focus in politics ("SJWs") with more moralism ("muh traditional values!") and more identitarianism ("muh white race!" when the non-whites rise up, "muh men's rights!" when women denounce the violence they suffer). The reactionaries, sexists and racists, Ted's "rebels" of choice, are no more than moralists and identitarians that leave "The System" untouched, just like their "left-wing" counterparts.
The fascists were never really a danger to "The System" but rather, as you say, their most trustworthy enforcers in times of crisis, keeping the economical structure of their country pretty much intact through direct class collaboration, under the guise of "national unity" - again, identitarianism - and a crackdown on those seeking an actual economical and social revolution (the communists in Germany). See picture #4.
Yeah, if this post was supposed to make me lose respect for Ted, then it's achieved its purpose.
Lemme guess, Antifa are a bunch of fascists right?
It's using the pre-Gamergate definition. "SJW" was initially used to mock zealous keyboard warriors. Right-wing idpol may be worse, but "left" idpol is still godawful and is arguably worse for us because of the infighting it causes and its diversion of focus from class politics into race LARPing.
I see you haven't had much contact with actual primitivists. Look up John "symbolic thought is oppressing me" Zerzan, perhaps the most prominent primitivist writer and advocate.
Without a doubt yes, most "SJW's" are just straight up minorities who only support themselves and have a mutual hatred for either whites, or men.
Feminist: I hate all men.
Black nationalist/self proclaimed sjw: I hate all whites.
And so on and so forth, but never the less calling sjw's the same as nazi's because both are idpol is like saying that we're the same as Holla Forums
I know who Zerzan is, but does he actually oppose language? Does he not realize that there were clothes and tools pre-agricultural revolution?
The fact you think that capitalism is so rigid suggests you have no idea how far it's willing to go.
You all go down the wrong path, and that is the path of pleasure and easyness. Rather, the path of humanism and ATWA is what you must embrace for humanity to prosper into the new aeon. Unabomber is but one wiseman, as is Charlie Manson, as is David Lane, as is William Pierce. Embrace ATWA and Neo-Ludditism, but use the knowledge of Dr. Pierce and David Lane. Embrace truth.
About as good for the working class as the fascists - and if the current events are to continue, one thing will lead us to the other. What fucking good is a load of teenagers sharing things on social networks and ocassionally attending counter-protests, thus diverting the left's enemy from the bourgeoisie to some strata of the working class? This nonsense and lack of alternative against the current order is what makes most people perceive Antifa (and thus, the left) as an enemy and the fascists as somewhat rational in comparison.
Nobody ever said both are exactly the same; both are functional to capitalist order because they divert attention from economic issues.
because, retarded faggot, I know the types of people ted is talking about and I can understand how they could potentially use these terms in an ignorant, non-marxist, decidedly liberal way
Can primmies do anything right
I think you could start by actually reading the Kaczynsky shit posted
But user, happiness is only achieved through the power process.
Reminder that he was an experiment by the proto-CIA gone awry: medium.com
Ted knew technology and capitalism go hand in hand, and it is for this reason why he didn't have anything charitable to say about conservatives either.
hmmmm makes u think
some decent points but i feel like ted's idea of "the system" gets seriously spooky here. it acts like an autonomous individual person planning everything behind the scenes. little different than the what the jews are to the right.
the elites dont run the system. the "system" is a system, above human beings. almost godlike. the elites profit in their role the most in this system, but they are also in a sense, "oppressed" and used by it.
this is pretty much the only thing ted says about conservatives though. he bitches about "leftists" every third second or third sentence.
Wow, how completely different from literally any other ideology. It's like leftists have a framework through which they analyze and interpret reality and thus glean their understanding of it. We all know Ted never had a defined, structured worldview that he, say, wrote about extensively in a long, rambling manifesto.
With the exception of Feminism, which has become so broad that it's a meaningless term, and political correctness, which has always been a form of moral self-censorship with no concrete political purpose, none of the other things mentioned are objectively bad, and all, including gender equality, are worthwhile Leftist goals and values.
Are you admitting that you're basing your distaste for Leftist politics on the awful personalities of a handful of insufferable virtue signaling militants? Admittedly this is the same thing Kaczynski does, but just like him this is a childishly paper thin way to engage in critique, he just names a bunch of things he expect an illiberal audience to be naturally disgusted by, and then offers no actual systemic critiques of Leftist theory or praxis,it's pure ad hominem, and just a lot of low effort Nietzschean dribble. Don't get me wrong, he has some points, ultraleftists aren't wrong when they call militancy the highest form of alienation, and a lot of Leftism, especially the identitarian stuff, is incredibly moralistic and religious in nature, but this essay is ridiculously overblown and has little value in my opinion, it's just a lot of bitching about nothing of consequence. Too bad this autists massive retardation had to lead to the deaths of a bunch of random harmless innocents. His actions were as worthless to the Left as his ideas.
Pic related because all anprims are antisocial psychopaths.
He clearly clarified what type of person he was talking about, maybe if you werent a retard and actually read "industrial society and its future" you would know he is not talking about socialists
No, I'd say it's mostly a lot of incoherent ad homs that conflate a lot of different Liberal and Left tendencies into one another, all delivered with an absolutely smug and condescending tone to boot. Maybe if you weren't a retard you wouldn't fall for reactionary anprim nonsense.
his criticism of the left comes from the stand point that they ruined the luddit or prim movments at the time so i guess he was angry at them. his manifesto isn't his best work either i would recomend the two other books where he explain much deeper. he do see both left and right as just strings to the industrial system tho
Ted Kaczynski predicted SJWs destroying Occupy in 199cocking5.
yes, thats why i also think it is important we should have one goal and not as many as possible. ted talks about this in Anti-tech Revolution: Why and how, even if you not anti tech i recomend reading this books if you want revolution. lot of helpful tips
but as i said he is not a leftist nor do i think he is a rightwinger, primitivism is something special…but he is an indivudualist if you will
if Ted was a leftist he'd be the fucking guy. Guess he wasn't so smart after all
Well I mean Ted wasn't even primitivist, he disliked primitivists, he was more anti-industrial: an interlectual luddite as it were.
i dont think he really disliked them, he gave them a critic like we do about communism, like ancoms are critcal towards ML's. he does talk about tribe life and consider the wild a good thing, i dont think he was just looking for going back to farming and shit. the manifesto i felt was not as good as his other works too, i posted a pdfs of them earlier. he and john zerzan who is a primitivist have also meet and agreed with eachother even if he is in the catgory of political correct prims. ted dislike eco-extemism tho, groups like ITS who have him as an inspiration
Yeah, this actually comes off as pretty hypocritical for his part about violence. I mean, he is ranting about violence and leftists making excuses for "left wing violence" and went through the trouble of mailing fucking bombs to random college profs.
So, if I got this right, Ted is mad that leftists might defend themselves, but randomly bombing university profs that do research he doesn't morally agree with is A-OK. What a phukking retard.
Some of the stuff the guy said is cool, but he also has some pretty retarded views that border on reactionary
ted disliked leftists because they are weak quasi religious fundamentalists reformists at best, not real revolutionaries in the sense of actually overturning the system entirely. not because of anything to do with violence. i dont think youve actually read anything of ted's.
ted's point was that leftists are often intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. for example, how some of the people even on this board will happily cry about american imperialism but will conveniently ignore or even justify soviet and chinese imperialism and exploitation of the 3rd world. ted is also wary of leftists because historically they have backstabbed and crushed individualist anti authoritarian movements (anarchists) whenever they had the chance
ted's base is fairly solid. where he goes off from that is kind of sketchy imo, but his critique of technology, civilization, and even leftism isn't really wrong in any way.
Ted was autistic and insane. His ramblings only seem "deep" to those who aren't well read. No one "ignores" the alleged imperialism of Russia or China. It is just far more important to destroy/disrupt the hegemonic capitalist empire that defends and strengthens global capitalism on a daily basis than it is to whine about muh human rights (which America also violates hilariously enough.)
this is hillary clinton voter levels of simultaneous smugness and ignorance. if youre going to call a literal child prodigy and genius retarded come up with something better than namecalling and buzzwords or just dont even say anything at all
I will call a murderous STEMlet whatever I want. Like I said, try reading actual philosophy then come back to the manifesto. It's fucking insanely cringeworthy just how uneducated he was when it came to basic political theory.
you used "hegemonic capitalist empire" to refer to a single state and implied other states were in opposition to this my guy. you have absolutely real grounding on any understanding of the world or how power and ideology works beyond strictly ideological texts. you're only proving ted's points about leftists right. and also likely have a tiny dick
THERE IS A MASSIVE LACK OF SELF KNOWLEDGE IN THIS THREAD
Many of you have been infected with the mind virus that is non ethnic socialism, Marxism, Communism, Progressiveness, and Leftism in general. Yes, he was talking about all of you. Learn to take criticism instead of making excuses and justifying deflection and continue growing as a person. Many of us on the right were like you once, join the rebels and fight the tyranny with us over at /pol. There is less random sex with trashy college girls and not many bongs, but unplugging from the Matrix and embracing the reality is worth .Have a butterfly.
the matrix was written by trannies you dumb fucking polack
Read Stirner you spooked cuck.
Stirner is a meme and a dying one at that
Would not wanting someone else to fuck my wife mean that I'm spooked by the interpersonal ownership that is marriage or some shit? Is that what Stirner said? Am I a cuck for not wanting Tyrone to fuck my wife?
Also, would you care to make an argument? How is Stirner posting any different that if I were to reply, "Read Ayn Rand?" You're an idiot and your BO wears a dress and sucks old man cock for room and board.
All of you out there figuring this shit out, pay attention to the mentally abusive brainwashing methods of the left. Learn how the system controls your minds.
Your wife isn't your chattel slave. You shouldn't think of your spouse as property. Also you need to stop watching cuck porn dude.
Yea that's what I thought you would say. No arguments though.
you're a cuck for autistically parroting someone else's opinions about leftists and "the system" when you clearly know nothing about either
what argument have you made?
I really do wonder if he had been a communist instead would have fully automate gay space communism by now
Ah, yes nothing is more rebellious than supporting cops and billionaires.
this so much. in reality Karl Marx said "immigrants are the reserve army of capitalism"
No. As long as you are aware that you could be a cuck, you aint spooked I guess.
This is your first warning about objectivity bro.
Even more ironically, Zerzan also has a radio show.
>On December 20, 2011, Adam Lanza, who would go on to become the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting nearly a year later on December 14, 2012, called in to Zerzan's radio show to discuss Travis, a domesticated chimpanzee who grievously mauled 55-year-old Charla Nash on February 16, 2009. Lanza articulated his opinion that the chimp's attack was due to its desire to break free from its domestication, and that it could be seen entirely parallel to a mall shooting committed by a civilized human teenager, to which Zerzan seemed to agree. Zerzan later commented, "This guy … was beyond the pale and yet, I think, he made an accurate point [about] these flipouts", but also that the realization that he talked to someone who would later become a mass murderer was "really chilling."
why the fuck are you trying to appeal to leftists OP?
Weak shits will never do anything in their life, just organise and do nothing.
I love how right wing brainlets latch on so tightly to anyone with even the slightest semblance of intellectual authority who vaguely shares their views and treats them like all-knowing prophets.
Being good at math doesn't make you automatically understand ideology, nor sociology or philosophy for that matter.
Wille zur Macht is not a goal
wrong thread lol, this was meant to go in the News One.
Wille is just the will. t. German