The 'Unabomber' describes the Left...

[amicus]

http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber

Theodore John Kaczynski (pronounced /kəˈzɪnski/; born May 22, 1942), also known as the Unabomber (University and Airline Bomber), is an American mathematician, neo-Luddite social critic, and murderer who carried out a campaign of mail bombings, as well as a described anarcho-primitivist with a strong hatred for consumer culture. He was born in Chicago, Illinois, where, as an intellectual child prodigy, he excelled academically from an early age. Kaczynski received an undergraduate degree from Harvard University and earned a PhD in mathematics from the University of Michigan. He became an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley at age 25 but resigned two years later.

One might also add that he had an IQ of Genius level, 165+, and entered Harvard at age 16. Harvard and UC Berkeley...

There was a program aired on television this evening, a new one, that introduced me to the history of this person and prompted me to go online and find the published Manifesto.

I was quite surprised at the content of the document and basically dare anyone who claims to be 'left', to read his indictment and explanation of the movement.

It is a strange piece as he identifies with the 'anti industrial' segment of leftist rhetoric, but deals devasting blows to the psychological underpinning of the movement.

Perhaps you will find it interesting and thought provoking as well...

Amicus

 

[Boota]

Who could possibly care what he thinks? He's Ted Kaczynski. It should be disturbing to agree with that crackpot on anything.

 

[xssve]

25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can
think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not
supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some
time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are
so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally
imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt,
they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives
and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality
have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe
such people. [2]

Sounds like the right to me - hell, he sounds like he's complaining about you, ami.

Kaczynski was a poor student of history if you ask me, it's always been shit, it's better now than it ever was - civilization is the problem, and it never changes, deal with it.

As for "morals", they're impossible by design, promulgated by people who can't live up to them themselves - they're always for "other people".

Lord give me chastity - just not yet.

-- St. Augustine.

 

[Pure]

It is a strange piece as he identifies with the 'anti industrial' segment of leftist rhetoric, but deals devasting blows to the psychological underpinning of the movement.

Perhaps you will find it interesting and thought provoking as well...

it's very thought provoking, ami, that you now find yourself agreeing with a far right terrorist and his pessimistic assessments.

as i recall you were approving too, of Roeder's murder of Tiller, the abortion dr.

i imagine you're going to 'tea parties' and stocking up on guns for the new revolution.

what happened to the sunny, gentle, optimistic [delusionally so], randist?

 

[Pure]

my god,

having re read a bit of the thing, it has this familiar ring. if it weren't so well spelled and literate, it could be our amicus! the long windedness is the same, as is the basic approach:

if you can't beat your opponents and get elected, if you can't meet their arguments, you can psychologize them to death with simplistic claptrap (see below). (this was, of course the approach of ms rand).

i do find it amusing that the unabomber and amicus rail against OVER socialization--i.e. NOT killing your opponents; the unabomber, according to our amicus, shows his free wild spirit!!





9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

10. By "feelings of inferiority" we 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 leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.[...]


18. Modern leftist 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 leftist 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 leftist 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 leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. [...]

19. The leftist 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 leftist 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 leftist tactics. Leftists 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 leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principle, 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.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.


OVERSOCIALIZATION

24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.

25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people. [2]

26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. [...]

27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals (3) constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.

28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. [...]

[...]

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.

229. The leftist is oriented toward largescale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically "enlightened" educational methods, for planning, for affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catch-phrases of the left like "racism, " "sexism, " "homophobia, " "capitalism," "imperialism," "neocolonialism " "genocide," "social change," "social justice," "social responsibility." Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights political correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these movements is almost certainly a leftist. [36]


230. The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists of all may be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values, "enlightened" psychological techniques for socializing children, dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth.

 

[JamesSD]

Read the first 30 bullet points. Dude is totally nuts. He's also a stereotypical "I'm smarter than everyone else so the rules don't apply to me" kind of guy.

The irony is that the Unabomber clearly HAS inferiority and self-esteem issues. He blames "the left" for his own personal failures. Sad that he hurt so many people. May he rot in hell.

 

[amicus]

I never paid much attention at the time to the entire episode, which went on for many years. The program was extensive and was basically all new to me and as I suggested, might be thought provoking to others.

Pure, ur a fart smeller, and clever at avoiding the essence of things to suit your own agenda...I don't fault you for that, you are just protecting yourself.

However, the similarity between his 'anti industrial' stance and the modern progressive lefts' continued insistence upon the purity of a pristine environment, limited population goals, halting expansion and growth, it seems to be that you and the bomber shared a common philosophical foundation.

Watching the program was sort of a 'boon', to use a Heinlein term, I didn't expect to see and hear what I did and it did provoke some thoughts. Perhaps if the program runs again you might get a chance to view it.

I should have taken notes and remembered the source of the program; one of the 'nerd' channels, perhaps someone else saw it and can give reference?

Amicus

 

[penandpaper]

The unabomber couldn't deal with society. That's it. That's the simple truth. He couldn't deal with people. They were always below him or, heaven forbid, disagreeing with him. He couldn't deal with change. He couldn't deal with anything. That was his only problem. If he would have invented something with that IQ of his and earned twenty million, been shipped off to Vegas and had women lined up out his door, and had a bunch of yes men, I doubt he would have done anything. Society would have been suddenly grand, and he would have been the brilliant man who knew how to "work it."

He's a sociopath. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Bianca_Sommerland]

The unabomber couldn't deal with society. That's it. That's the simple truth. He couldn't deal with people. They were always below him or, heaven forbid, disagreeing with him. He couldn't deal with change. He couldn't deal with anything. That was his only problem. If he would have invented something with that IQ of his and earned twenty million, been shipped off to Vegas and had women lined up out his door, and had a bunch of yes men, I doubt he would have done anything. Society would have been suddenly grand, and he would have been the brilliant man who knew how to "work it."

He's a sociopath. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I couldn't agree more. Wasn't Manson supposed to be a genius too? Very well spoken and all that crap. The worst cult extreemist often seem to be (not quoting fact, just my own observation) and this guy talks just like them...only without the cult.

 

[amicus]

Perhaps, Penandpaper, perhaps, just a sociopath...a traumatized child, as the program suggested, isolated and humiliated at Harvard by the snobs...but I see the results of an ideology at work in his words...did you read his Manifesto?

I sense he suffered a dilusion shared by many; that the industrial progress of humanity has changed all of human life in a negative manner.

It is exemplified by the, 'return to nature' or 'save the earth' mentality, that just cannot cope with the modern world and where it will go and what it will become.

I thought it a fascinating dissection of the anti industrial left that is appropo of many on this forum. I need to read it more closely as I just scanned it the first time through, but the similarity of thought and common criticism of the modern left is astounding.

If you take an objective view of the art of the 20th century, the disjointed, twisted, agonized portrayals of mankind, read the apocalyptic conclusions and anti business/industrial rhetoric of the vast majority of novels and films following world war two, I think you might see the connection I am trying to explain.

If so many were not so immersed in Marxist dialectic and could actually look upon an objective view of modern man, art, music and literature could have an entirely different outlook on human life.

Ah, well...gave it a shot...kind of a big view...

Amicus

 

[Bianca_Sommerland]

Perhaps, Penandpaper, perhaps, just a sociopath...a traumatized child, as the program suggested, isolated and humiliated at Harvard by the snobs...but I see the results of an ideology at work in his words...did you read his Manifesto?

I sense he suffered a dilusion shared by many; that the industrial progress of humanity has changed all of human life in a negative manner.

It is exemplified by the, 'return to nature' or 'save the earth' mentality, that just cannot cope with the modern world and where it will go and what it will become.

I thought it a fascinating dissection of the anti industrial left that is appropo of many on this forum. I need to read it more closely as I just scanned it the first time through, but the similarity of thought and common criticism of the modern left is astounding.

If you take an objective view of the art of the 20th century, the disjointed, twisted, agonized portrayals of mankind, read the apocalyptic conclusions and anti business/industrial rhetoric of the vast majority of novels and films following world war two, I think you might see the connection I am trying to explain.

I so many were not so immersed in Marxist dialectic and could actually look upon an objective view of modern man, art, music and literature could have an entirely different outlook on human life.

Ah, well...gave it a shot...kind of a big view...

Amicus

That arguement can be used to justify most kids who go to school and shoot up their classmates. Note it's not only the person who tortured them and put them down who gets shot. Sorry but I just can't wrap my head around letting anyone use all the bad things in their past to excuse what they've done. A lot of people have shit lives. A lot of people hate the system. Either they do something to change it in a positive way or the cope. Those who don't aren't special. They just think they are.

 

[amicus]

That arguement can be used to justify most kids who go to school and shoot up their classmates. Note it's not only the person who tortured them and put them down who gets shot. Sorry but I just can't wrap my head around letting anyone use all the bad things in their past to excuse what they've done. A lot of people have shit lives. A lot of people hate the system. Either they do something to change it in a positive way or the cope. Those who don't aren't special. They just think they are.[/QUOTE]

~~~

I certainly do not justify his actions in any way, he was psychotic and narcissistic and his feeling of superiority and detachment plus his intelligence offered him a way to express his distaste for modern society.

However, and I want to phrase this carefully, his method was perhaps more honest than some on this forum.

When someone advocates enslaving entire societies to serve the 'greater good' by sacrificing the individual, I take that as a personal threat as I value my freedom of choice as much as I value life itself.

To take just a current issue, socialized medicine, I fail to see anyone advocating it, explain how they morally justify forcing Doctors to give up their freedom and function as automatons directed by the State.

There are many social problems all around the world that I would like to see solved including medical care, sufficient food, clean water and the opportunities for education.

But I would never, on my worst day, offer a solution that forced others to meet the needs of society. I find that mindset, that concept, repugnant, no matter how much good one might think it does, to use force to take from some and give to others.

I have no idea what your political persuasion may be, but if it includes any grand socialist ideal that involves the sacrifice of the rights of even one individual, I would ask you to justify it.

Amicus

 

[Bianca_Sommerland]

~~~

I certainly do not justify his actions in any way, he was psychotic and narcissistic and his feeling of superiority and detachment plus his intelligence offered him a way to express his distaste for modern society.

However, and I want to phrase this carefully, his method was perhaps more honest than some on this forum.

When someone advocates enslaving entire societies to serve the 'greater good' by sacrificing the individual, I take that as a personal threat as I value my freedom of choice as much as I value life itself.

To take just a current issue, socialized medicine, I fail to see anyone advocating it, explain how they morally justify forcing Doctors to give up their freedom and function as automatons directed by the State.

There are many social problems all around the world that I would like to see solved including medical care, sufficient food, clean water and the opportunities for education.

But I would never, on my worst day, offer a solution that forced others to meet the needs of society. I find that mindset, that concept, repugnant, no matter how much good one might think it does, to use force to take from some and give to others.

I have no idea what your political persuasion may be, but if it includes any grand socialist ideal that involves the sacrifice of the rights of even one individual, I would ask you to justify it.

Amicus[/QUOTE]

Amicus in no way, shape or form am I a socialist. What I am saying is that plowing down innocents to make a point negates the point. He might have had something important to say. He might have been able to make changes. Instead he used slaughter and from then on his ideals mean nothing.

Your last statement (well the second to last to be more specific) makes my point. He used force to take from some, only he gave nothing back. He became what he was protesting. His intention now means nothing.

 

[amicus]

~~~

I certainly do not justify his actions in any way, he was psychotic and narcissistic and his feeling of superiority and detachment plus his intelligence offered him a way to express his distaste for modern society.

However, and I want to phrase this carefully, his method was perhaps more honest than some on this forum.

When someone advocates enslaving entire societies to serve the 'greater good' by sacrificing the individual, I take that as a personal threat as I value my freedom of choice as much as I value life itself.

To take just a current issue, socialized medicine, I fail to see anyone advocating it, explain how they morally justify forcing Doctors to give up their freedom and function as automatons directed by the State.

There are many social problems all around the world that I would like to see solved including medical care, sufficient food, clean water and the opportunities for education.

But I would never, on my worst day, offer a solution that forced others to meet the needs of society. I find that mindset, that concept, repugnant, no matter how much good one might think it does, to use force to take from some and give to others.

I have no idea what your political persuasion may be, but if it includes any grand socialist ideal that involves the sacrifice of the rights of even one individual, I would ask you to justify it.

Amicus

Amicus in no way, shape or form am I a socialist. What I am saying is that plowing down innocents to make a point negates the point. He might have had something important to say. He might have been able to make changes. Instead he used slaughter and from then on his ideals mean nothing.

Your last statement (well the second to last to be more specific) makes my point. He used force to take from some, only he gave nothing back. He became what he was protesting. His intention now means nothing.[/QUOTE]

~~~

I don't recall saying hello and welcome to the forum, so I will take this opportunity to do just that.

I am glad to know we agree that the use of force to gain a desired end, is an immoral act.

I look forward to learning just where you stand; who knows, perhaps this will be a fortuitous meeting?

regards...

Amicus

 

[SeaCat]

Ami,

I started reading through it but was distracted by minor little details like dinner and a movie with the wife. So far an interesting read even though I do not agree with many of his ideas.

I'll return to it tomorrow when I have more time to sit and read it. When I have read it and have even thought about it I'll attempt to post my thoughts in a coherent manner.

I do have to say though that so far it sounds like a prson unhappy with their life shouting out and trying to find a scapegoat for their unhappiness. One who feels that they would be much happier in their own romanticiezed(sp) version of the semi agricultural life style of the middle ages or before.

Cat

 

[Bianca_Sommerland]

Amicus in no way, shape or form am I a socialist. What I am saying is that plowing down innocents to make a point negates the point. He might have had something important to say. He might have been able to make changes. Instead he used slaughter and from then on his ideals mean nothing.

Your last statement (well the second to last to be more specific) makes my point. He used force to take from some, only he gave nothing back. He became what he was protesting. His intention now means nothing.

~~~

I don't recall saying hello and welcome to the forum, so I will take this opportunity to do just that.

I am glad to know we agree that the use of force to gain a desired end, is an immoral act.

I look forward to learning just where you stand; who knows, perhaps this will be a fortuitous meeting?

regards...

Amicus[/QUOTE]

Thank you Amicus. It's nice to meet you. I love good conversation and your topic provided that very well. As for where I stand, well, the best I can say is I stand by the do what thou will shall thy harm no other being. I think most religions have a version of it and I think it overrides all else. I like doing what I want, and whether others approve or not, or whether it is socially acceptible, means nothing to me.

I might not agree with there methods but I can't help being fascinated by those such as Manson and even Hitler...and before anyone tries to crucify me I said fascinated. Not enthralled or in awe. I think it says alot about the human nature to see how the right words, said just the right way, can convince them of anything. The goverment does it all the time and it slides by. It's the extreemist that get called on it.

Maybe I'm weird. I love Marie Antoinette and Cleopatra and think they were condemed for all the wrong reasons. In all maybe I'm just weird.

The babble does have a point. Don't think I fit as a socialist. Or...umm...anything else.

Must say it takes balls to try and see things from the point of view of someone so hated. More so on a public MB. Gotta respect you for it.

Hmm...maybe I should go back to the prisoners thread and suggest they eat cake. Could be interesting.

 

[amicus]

Hello Seacat, and greetings...

From reading your posts, you have stated that you are in the medical field, and as I gather, see a great deal of improvements that could be made.

Upton Sinclair, as I recall, wrote a book about the meat-packing industry that eventually changed many things in that industry. I have hopes that those within the medical industry, all aspects of it, might speak from knowledge and have rational suggestions as to how to change the system to function better without using the force of government to bring about those changes.

To turn to just one example, MRI, the expense of the equipment and the training of people to conduct and analize the results, has added to the expense of providing medical service even if the benefits are great. The same with Lazer surgery, either for Caterracts or for Lasix surgery to improve vision, are is also very expensive and requires very specialized training.

I suggest that these innovations must occur within the private sector as once a bureaucracy is in place, expenditures for change seldom come about.

I look forward to your commentary on the Manifesto...

amicus

 

[JamesSD]

The babble does have a point. Don't think I fit as a socialist. Or...umm...anything else.

Welcome to the AH. If you disagree with Amicus on a political issue, he'll call you a socialist. It's just how he works. That and lots and lots of one sentence paragraphs.

 

[amicus]

]Welcome to the AH. If you disagree with Amicus on a political issue, he'll call you a socialist. It's just how he works. That and lots and lots of one sentence paragraphs[/I].

~~~

Ah, JamesSD, be fair about it, I vary my routine from time to time. Instead of socialist, I might use fascist, of statist, or left wing nuts.

It has to do, I suppose, with my penchant for absolutes; one is either free or not free, there is no in between.

Nothing you or I say on this forum will effect much change, even many years on the radio and television and writing editorials seemed to change very little, at least from my perspective.

I have never been made very welcome on this forum for my differing views than the majority, but then, it has always been that way throughout my lifetime as contemporary intellectual direction has been in opposition to individual liberty.

I have no tolerance for those who advocate human slavery. I consider it evil and the very depths of degradatation and an abrogation of the very nature of being human.

Thus, when you, or anyone else, claims the right to force me to do your bidding without my consent, I quite naturally raise an objection.

Bianca made an interesting observation: that many people can be led to do horrible deeds by a strong personality or leader. People seem always to be more comfortable being among those who are in agreement with them regardless of the belief or political dogma.

The worship of the current President is one of the most frightening events I have seen in all my lifetime, especially in a free society.

I wonder how it will end?

Amicus