/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

I never got it either

Its just him complaining about le technology bad because it enslaves people or something

The book really turns me ofd where its just him seething about women geg

>>2914615
reactoids love it because he attacks leftists and politically correct types which back in the 80s and 90s was the original woke.

they ignore the part where he attacks conservatives.

>>2914615
>Can someone explain to me why this is jerked off so much online?
you answered your own question:
> it reads like a reddit thread or something one of you would write lol.
it's literally flattering to the exact type of person who would write it: online weirdos

>>2914615
It's funny to point out too Kaczynski shills how little they actually know about the natural world. Primitivists genuinely don't even have a basic knowledge of common native plants near them 9 times out of 10. Talking all this shit about nature and man being le virus and they can't even do basic ass plant and bird ID.


>>2914621
/thread, shit is just a circlejerk for misanthropes that think they're better than everyone else

>>2914619
To be fair he spends like two sentences attacking conservatives and like two pages attacking leftists. It's obvious he was a reactionary

I agree, dude was basically a moron

Was Ted an incel?

>>2915067
No.
He was greater than a Revcel.
He was a SHRIGMA MALE : A person way more superior to both alpha and sigma males. He can reproduce by himself, so he doesn’t need woman, but all woman in his age category are sexually attracted to him

What about the Montreal shooter manifesto. I feel he has a point but nobody wants to really accept it.

ITT: oversocialized leftists

>>2914615
Not many people are exposed to anti-civ or neo-luddite arguments so he leaves an impression. Maybe they read Call of the Wild in highschool. Unlike most philosophers, he writes in a simple manner. He had some memorable concepts like the power process and surrogate activities.

Did you actually read it? You didn't engage with any arguments in your post. A lot of people lie about reading him, for some reason. Can you name some practical advice he gave for overthrowing the technological system?

For Marxists, his book "Anti-Tech Revolution Why and How" might be more interesting, since he refers often to socialist revolutions when trying to formulate his own, and he has a favorite Engels quote he loves repeating. It's not one socialists like too much though, since it's about how the result of revolutions are rarely what anyone planned because there's so many divergent interests. Also funny that he's a better materialist than a lot of online lefties, e.g.

<Marx did not invent socialism, nor did he originate the impulse to revolution. Both socialism and revolution were "in the air" in Marx's day, and they weren't in the air just because some ingenious fellow happened to dream them up. They were in the air because they were called forth by the social conditions of the time (as Marx himself would have been the first to insist). If Marx had never lived there would have been revolutionaries all the same, and they would have adopted some other socialistic thinker as their patron saint. In that case the terminology and the details of the theory would have been different but the subsequent political events probably would have been much the same, because those events were determined not by Marx's theories but by some combination of "objective" conditions with the decisions of the men of action who organized the socialist revolutions. And the men of action, as we've pointed out, were guided less by Marx's theories than by the practical exigencies of revolutionary work.

Not sure what you meant by the Reddit comment, when his work is about as anti-Reddit as possible. His description of oversocialized liberals matches them well. For example, if you go to the unpopular opinions sub, you'll read proclamations that racism and celebrity worship are bad, that Hollywood movies are good actually, and that it's the duty of citizens to be well read. And they believe in the Star Trek future, of course.

He tosses out asides that are better than most modern day commentators. For example, everyone is talking about how AI is gonna kill us all like Skynet, or that evil capitalists will control us with it, but he says the more likely danger is we'll become increasingly dependent on AI because it'll make better decisions than humans, until society is so complex, and the AI so inscrutable that we couldn't unplug the AI even if we wanted to because it would be suicide. So much for "every cook can govern."

There's not gonna be an anti-tech revolution, though. We can't even get a socialist one and that would be a thousand times easier. If the environmental crisis gets bad enough people will demand geo-engineering.

>>2915089
Post it here

>>2915151
>his work is about as anti-reddit as possible
Literally the first result lmao

>>2914615
Its well recorded that he was a test subject for CIA interrigation methods and was psychologically tortured. He became a reclusive hermit and blamed campus leftists for it.

>>2914615
>Can someone explain to me why this is jerked off so much online?

because he mailed bombs to people and blew them up and became the target of a nationwide manhunt. if not for that, not a single person in the world would know or care about anything he ever wrote. even when compared with other works in the "drivel written by weirdo loners" genre, industrial society and its future is pretty lame and nowhere near the level of stuff like timecube or henry darger.

>>2915206
Here you have, ya prick
https://www.rebelnews.com/manifesto_reveals_alleged_montreal_gunman_s_antisemitic_far_left_and_incel_ideology

>>2915089
>>2915488
I thought that was a reference to Marc Lepine not the recent incel shooter. I don't know if Lepine would've been considered an incel since he committed his shooting in the 80s although I guess he'd been an incel in the 2020s. Here's a wiki on Lepine in case you never heard of him
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_L%C3%A9pine

>>2915499
>Marc Lépine
The death note is here, if that's what you mean
https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/lepine_note_1.1.pdf

idk, if he had written something else before that

>>2914636
>It's funny to point out too Kaczynski shills how little they actually know about the natural world. Primitivists genuinely don't even have a basic knowledge of common native plants near them 9 times out of 10.
Not true about Ted himself, tho. He seems to have a pretty good knowledge of wild edible plants, for example.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-an-interview-with-ted-kaczynski
<BVD: What was your favorite wild food?
>TJK: Probably the tastiest wild food in the Lincoln area is partridge berries, a tiny species of Vaccinium—the blueberry genus—that grows at high altitudes. The berries are so tiny that it may take an hour to pick a cupful, but the flavor is superb. Apart from those, my favorite foods are huckleberries, yampa, and the livers of deer, snowshoe rabbit, and porcupines.

>>2915067
>Was Ted an incel?
Dunno. He had a gf. But she left him, which made him really angry, so he wrote some limericks about her being a whore and then he glued them all over the place she worked.

>>2915228
>Its well recorded that he was a test subject for CIA interrigation methods and was psychologically tortured.
That's a myth. Neither he was part of MKUltra, nor was he tortured. It's a urban legend created by sloppy liberal journos.

Read this:
https://www.thetedkarchive.com/library/alex-uziel-ted-kaczynski-debunking-the-ted-kaczynski-mk-ultra-myth

>>2915151
>Did you actually read it? You didn't engage with any arguments in your post.
>leftypol
>read

lol

>Not sure what you meant by the Reddit comment, when his work is about as anti-Reddit as possible.
What does "Reddit" even mean in this context? Like "cringe normie shit" or something? I hate this kind of memespeak

>>2915207
kek

>>2915092
>ITT: oversocialized leftists
havin' sex with your mom

>>2915538
>He seems to have a pretty good knowledge of wild edible plants, for example
I'll take your word for it, its makes sense given to the whole living in a remote cabin thing

honestly after i finally got around to reading the unabomber manifesto it immediately made sense why it's so popular among internet retards - because it's mostly conservative far-right nonsense whining about leftism and cultural marxism and feminism and political correctness and it's all the typical case of privileged self-centered white male intellectual who thinks society has spent enough time worrying about everyone else's problems and should focus on him and his much more important problems, like the state building a road over his favorite camping spot.

the tragedy of ted is he was just born too early, if he had been born in 1992 instead of 1942 he would probably be some popular successful alt-right social media influencer today and he wouldn't have had to leave civilization to go live in the mountains or blow anybody up. that's probably the only reason he cared so much about environmental shit is because he was too much of a weirdo to live in a pre-internet industrial society, it's not like he was some tree hugging nature hippie or something.

if people really want some infamous criminally insane weirdo to idolize as a misunderstood genius and radical leftist visionary, i think charles manson would be a better choice than the unabomber. at least ATWA was coherent and straightforward - air, trees, water, animals - just four words, not a whole rambling meandering essay that veers off into every tangential notion that popped into the dude's head. and at least charles manson was funny.

>>2915739
Also Charles Manson got way more pussy.

>>2915739

>>2915916

White people be like
>bro that psyoped white rightoid is soo lame, idolize this other white rightoid (mazi cult leader) instead lul

>>2915739
TedK was rejecting the left-right dynamic as a product of the modern world. I think his ramblings about the left mostly were directed at the eco movement at the time and, as he seen it, attachment to leftism/liberalism. We always do this thing when talking about Ted K of removing him from the wider context of the movement at the time, this is the era of Earth First zines, Earth Liberation Front fires, and all that stuff, it needs to be considered in this context and who the audience was.

He made a few interesting points

• People are oversocialized into socializing their negativity into good, so they invent ways of reframing shitty behavior as good. The left does this more than the right.
  
• The more technology a society adopts, the more things people can do. Consequently, there's a greater the need for regulation.
  
• Technology and science are ambivalent and people can be terrible. More technology means we will witness more evil.
  
• There was more freedom in a medieval dictatorship than a modern democracy because they didn't have surveillance technology.

>>2916232
>The more technology a society adopts, the more things people can do. Consequently, there's a greater the need for regulation.
Samefag. This here means that people in industrial societies will be regulated to keep their behavior predictable, rules, dependence, conditioning and so on.

Some quotes from his manifesto
>The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system.

>The concept of “mental health” in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress.

>Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness.

>>2916058
>this is the era of Earth First zines, Earth Liberation Front fires, and all that stuff, it needs to be considered in this context and who the audience was.
That's an interesting point.

i feel like every writing rightoids tout as their best are retarded, its either this shit, siege or maybe the turner diaries if you're dealing with an older faggot

>>2916232
> People are oversocialized into socializing their negativity into good, so they invent ways of reframing shitty behavior as good. The left does this more than the right.
If you spend more than 10 seconds to actually conceptualize this in your head youd realize how meqn8ngless it actually is "oversocialized into socializing behaviors as good" no shit. Good is a positive word and want to be seen as good because we are social animals and being perceived as good will get people to like you. Its not a social phenomenon. Its a defence mechanism for justifying your actions to others even when you know you are doing them for a selfish and harmful reason. Its not as deep as Ted thinks it is.
> The more technology a society adopts, the more things people can do. Consequently, there's a greater the need for regulation.
This would imply that people remain equally as free as in ye olden days because the system regulates itself accordingly which goes against teds whole thesis. In how different of a position is a person who cant do shit but is free to do it from a person who can do anything but is not allowed to do it. Also this adresses regulation on a larger societal scale not personal inalienable freedoms and autonomy which is whats more important to Ted.
> Technology and science are ambivalent and people can be terrible. More technology means we will witness more evil.
The average elementary school kid reaches this conclusion on their own.
> There was more freedom in a medieval dictatorship than a modern democracy because they didn't have surveillance technology.
This is the only one I actually like as it actually has substance and potential. But this deals with the enforceability of laws more so than whats actually permitted. I live in a third world shithole that is in liberal terms officially orders of magnitude less free than the United states or France but I can get away with shit that i wouldnt dare think about in one of those countries. While i agree with Ted on this one completely and without reserve (i spent quite a bit of time thinking about this topic in particular, how governable are extremely remote places like rainforests, Arctic Canada, Tibetan mountains and extremely rural expanses of subsaharan africa and the general limits of how far up your ass the state can actually get) The fundamental problem is how to package this idea into a viable movement as it wouldnt seek to change the government or state internally at all and rather attack it from the outside in an inherently anti-social way. Best way I can Imagine it is various scattered interest groups that seek to do certain narrowly defined things but cant because they are not allowed to so they create gangs focused on evading and erroding the surveillance and law enforcement system so that they can accomplish their local and personal goals. Much like how radical groups from all across the political spectrum agree with destroying flock cameras because they hinder their group in particular. It would inevitably circle back to some sort of anarchism with a bajillion communes oppossed or indifferent to each other which already exists as an Idea and Ted probably wouldnt like it anyway.