The Psychology of Modern Leftism- Theodore Kaczynski

www.davesag.com...

The Psychology of Modern Leftism
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th century.

These are the ideals of Theodore Kaczynski, I am not stating I agree or disagree with his ideals.

Please post your opinions on Theodore Kaczynski's view points on mordern leftism. I would like this thread to be very interesting.

-LOD

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

That has got to be the dumbest psychology I have ever encountered.

It is a classic example of how right is every bit as much a disease as left.

That discourse on leftist psychology was pure rationalization.

Theodore Kaczynski, as in the Unabomber?

The Psychology of Modern Leftism, as in the Unabomber Manifesto?

I think that if he had such great ideas, he probably wouldn't have had to send bombs to get people to publish his work. He is a murderer, nothing more.



[edit on 24-4-2005 by Duzey]

Originally posted by Scorpio Shaping Flow
That has got to be the dumbest psychology I have ever encountered.

It is a classic example of how right is every bit as much a disease as left.

That discourse on leftist psychology was pure rationalization.

Can you explain why you feel this way a bit more please? Did he offend you, what makes your view points different from his? Are you using rationalization by stating that was the dumbest psychology you ever encountered? I am not trying to harass you or your view points, just I am interested in them. Thanks

-Your friend LOD

Originally posted by Duzey
Theodore Kaczynski, as in the Unabomber?

The Psychology of Modern Leftism, as in the Unabomber Manifesto?

I think that if he had such great ideas, he probably wouldn't have had to send bombs to get people to publish his work. He is a murderer, nothing more.



[edit on 24-4-2005 by Duzey]

With all due respect, please reframe from talking about how he killed others, instead please talk about his ideologies, and how they impact you. Thanks.

-LOD

[edit on 053030p://000 by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy]

[edit on 063030p://000 by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy]

With all due respect, please reframe from talking about how he killed others, instead please talk about his ideologies, and how they impact you. Thanks.

I think the fact that he killed others is relevant. What is wrong with discussing his actions in addition to his ideologies?

Jemison

Because I did not make this thread to talk about his actions, only his ideologies.

My problem with it is that it is no more than one percent correct. There really is no place to start because it's all wrong and is rationalization to boot. Depression amongst leftists is about the only correct idea.

I think that is an opinion. Plus you still haven’t answered my questions.
Please answer them, and thanks

-LOD

As with most any "right" or "left" ideal I find both sides are just cans of thick word soup. The unabomber is no worse than the ultra-right neocons or their hypocrytical christian cohorts. Intelligence is obviously not a key to evolution. The intelligence of most anyone that is "famous" is used to further labelling and compartmentalizing of groups of people. Shows mental laziness really.

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
Intelligence is obviously not a key to evolution.

Why is this? Don't we need intelligence in our species to survive?

Originally posted by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
Intelligence is obviously not a key to evolution.

Why is this? Don't we need intelligence in our species to survive?

I meant that intelligence isn't often used for mental evolution. It's used mostly for devolution and feeding the ego at the expense of others. It's definitely necessary just rarely used.

I answered your questions. The guy turns human psychology all backwards and then twists it into a rationalized ideology.

For example:

His idea: Leftists are depressed.
My Idea: Openly depressed personalities are more likely to become leftists.

Conclusion: 1% correct. 99% political-fanatical rationalization which makes use of psychological terminology. The rest of his ideas are off the mark. The guy is severely confused, or he knows how to act severely confused. He is a very typical politically modelled mentality. He does not know human psychology, and if he does, he knows how to avoid discussing it sensibly.

His ideas on socialism are basically academic and hardly original. This is a superficial understanding at best, strictly tied to political ideology and organizational function within that context. Socialism as understood by those who know what that word implies on a practical and real level - civil reality level - know that socialism is very much integral with right-wing thinking, though they go through such pains to associate the word with left-wing thinking. In fact, right-wing thinking tends to be more effective in establishing socialism for the long term verse the more confused-but-honest left-wing thinking (sentimentally correct if anything).

In the evolving, right-wing-ruled Capitalist world, socialism is effectively reserved for the lower civil classes, who simply will not attain for themselves a capital nature on an individual level even prior to monetary capital considerations; you will be indoctrinated to think of yourself as strictly capitalist though, the word socialism effectively being tied to left-leaning political groups. The capitalists simply have the more common grade "socialist" severely out classed across the board. All the lower classes can do any more is whine and become confused. Maybe even violently confused for a time. If you want power, you must be powerful. And then what will you do with that power? Abuse it right away?

Here's an interesting bit of trivia for you, Theodore Kaczynski was a participant in the Government's '___' pyschotherapy experiments in the 50's. Your tax dollars created that guy.

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.

As a generalization, probably not true, but I can think of a few cases where it fits perfectly. Maybe not quite invented, but many social problems today are exaggerated so that a "solution" must be found.

twitchy

originally posted by twitchy Your tax dollars created that guy.

Even if he did receive '___' ( which is questionable ), I doubt it "created" him. I don't believe there is any evidence that other subjects of the experiments had major problems.

Those '___' experiments were, most probably, secret experiments being conducted to test the effects '___' had on the practices associated with astral-projection-based vampirism. The idea is that the '___' makes you increasingly crazy, which is the spiritual equivalent to fried chicken. Every experiment was a potential astral vampirism fiest, the subjects becoming a little crazier with each session. The drug would simply break down any defenses against the practice by making the aura bloom in a chaotic fashion, revealing talents the aura would normally keep hidden, as well as break down any characterological armoring the subject might already suffer in self-defense against previous attacks and other influences. The subject would enjoy a crazy session, which only really offers an initial, abortive form of illumination, and then the vampirism session would begin once the subject went home and went to bed that night.

Sheesh.

Everyone talks about "leftism" as though it suddenly cropped up in the past 5 minutes or so.

Liberals have been with us ever since the start of civilization.

Liberals are the ones who say "we don't like the way things have 'always been done.' We want a new way."

Liberals were responsible for groups of people having organized leaderships. Liberals were responsible for most of our modern laws and most of our ancient laws (the "no, it's not okay for Og to run around hitting everyone with rocks. We're going to put a stop to it" is a liberal thing. Conservatives thought that since Og had always done it there was no need to change.)

The reason you can vote today is because of liberal policies.
The reason you have a public education is because of liberal policies.
The reason we have laws against pedophilia is because of liberal policies.
The reason we have laws to ensure good city sanitation is because of liberals.
The reason we have laws to keep big logging companies from clearcutting every tree in America is because of liberals.
The reason we're an independant country is because of liberals.

...and on and on and on.

Remember, Conservatives don't like changes to the status quo. They make laws to enforce the "way things have always been."

The "psychology" angle for it is ridiculous. It doesn't take depression or clinical psychosis to see that if a man is beating his teenager to death, society should step in and keep him from killing the kid instead of standing by and handing him rocks so he could finish the kid off (by the way, that's a Biblical law, as I'm sure we all remember, and is mentioned in the Bible (and by Jesus) that if a man's child offends him and is difficult, then the man is obliged to kill his own child.)

Liberals changed that Old Testament law. And Jesus, who challenged it, was also a leftie-liberal.

reply to post by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy


Kaczynski is a naturalist, he rejects technology and leftism because, as he believes, it diverges from the "natural order of things" (i.e. evolution, life, death). His argument is very strong, yet the underlying ignorance remains: In his devotion to the natural order of life, Kaczynski is essentially equating the human mind and spirit with animals, as if we do not possess anything greater intellectually. That unique human capacity FOR self-worth, FOR compassion, FOR collectivism--that SOMETHING that segregates us as a race from animalia--exists because of what humankind is endowed with. That great, almost unnatural, HUMAN ability to challenge, to feel, underlies Kaczynski argument's great hole--that we are not animals, that we do not possess the same intellectual capabilities as those that truly abide by the "natural" order of life. In acknowledging these real, yet intangible, human mental and spiritual abilities, the argument AGAINST the "oppressive" nature of capitalism is spawned, and Kaczynski's argument for naturalism in the animalistic sense is derailed.

On a less existential and philosophical note, his classifications of superior/inferior are entirely superficial; he writes as if a solitary characteristic is the determinant of superiority. Also, his labels of the West as "strong and successful" are ordained around a value system of aggression, violence, power and wealth--ethnocentrism, moralcentrism, at its essence. Unacknowledged is the resounding possibility that these "conquered, defeated, weak nations/peoples" possess opposing value systems (possibly for naturalistic reasons, i.e. climate, topography, geology), that would disavow imperialism and aggression and embrace collectivism. The other ignored possibility resides in resource-need differential (European nations had fewer natural resources, imperialism is necessitated/inevitable for prosperity), leading one region, perhaps unknowingly, to its own culture and history of aggressive diplomacy or imperialism. Likely, the two explanations intertwine for an historical truth.

Regarding the portion of the essay posted here. It is the only writings I have read from this author but I think the point he makes is evident in the world around us! This is just how the liberal mind is.

And by the way, what is wrong with RATIONALIZING our experiences? Isn't that the function of thought? I see this playing out all the time. Its the "high mindedness" of the left that gives them their incredulous streak when it comes to common sense and the world around them. They constantly play the victim instead of doing anything constructive.

OK, this guy is a murderer for sure, but also a certified schizo with brain chemistry problems. And Bill Ayers also planted bombs and the Weather Underground started Riots for their beliefs. People listen to their arguments and discuss their ideas, so why can't people stay on topic and respect the poster's comment that he wants to discuss the ideas not the actions of Ted K.