This must be the dumbest motherfucker to have ever existed, I can't believe people consider them to be a genius in anything other than gaslighting and projection. Almost every single line could be ranked among the most absurd takes I have ever read. I did not know that it was possible to experience such intense feelings of cringe outside of Twitter. The industrial revolution and its consequences indeed.
Dude went to Harvard at 16, earned degrees in mathematics, and was a mathematics professor at UC Berkeley. But yeah like it happens all too often with people who are geniuses in one specialization, he was a complete dumbass in fields outside his expertise.
He's fun to meme about but leftists shouldn't take him seriously.
Show
This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.
lmao, even back then chuds were shy about being PoLitICaL
Don't be such a tease. Drop some bars. Let's hear a few of Ted's best bangers.
OK because you asked nicely:
- Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)
- Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.
- Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.
Apparently the unabomber never heard of the concept of critical support.
This next bit is a little long but gives a good demo of Ted's nonexistant understanding of theory:
- Modern leftish 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 leftish 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. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up properly.
- Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.
- 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.
Why can't these darn leftists just quit their complaining >:(
- 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. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes [4] for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.
Dude just straight up denies that systematic issues exist, while apparently retaining enough presence of mind to understand that the system needs to be taken down. In place of acknowledging class and power, subjugation and exploitation, Ted instead offers us political correctness gone mad and hobbies bad.
Yeah, its definitely got the same "genius" energy of your Matt Yglesias quips, Ben Shapiro rants, or Jordan Peterson tearful monologues. He's clearly aware of the material history of these people and organizations and he acknowledges tendencies among leftists to champion the weak and oppose the cruel. But he psychologizes the motivations in order to tear down his subjects. "You support marginalized people because you resent them. You oppose powerful people because you envy them. You're too empathetic and too intellectual and too moralistic. And if you're too much of something, that means you're the opposite of it."
Its the exact same gibberish I'd expect to read from a WaPo Op-Ed or Economist Think Piece or NYT Best Seller.
Cringe.
I can see why these braindead anti-Left rantings are deemed "genuis", though. Dude was a predecessor to Peterson complaining about woke moralist, postmodern cultural Marxists.
I misspelled genuis. I am the cringe.
what absolutely useless drivel- like he typed this stuff out and thought he was breaking new ground with this half-assed psychoanalysis of people he doesn't know? And for some reason it appears the greatest (secret) and worst desire of the "leftish philosophers" is their quest for power, something that Ted would never relate to in his campaign to terrorize society to uhh give up technology? good fuckin luck with that.
idk if the funniest and most contradictory part where he's like oh there's (some) truth that society doesn't live up to its ideals- but still, leftists wrongly claimed those values and even more wrongly complain when society behaves poorly. Which just doesn't make sense.
Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being... good
Chuds have the monopoly on goodism
For years, Ted was nothing more than an upright citizens brigade punchline to me. Then I got a targeted AD for an AI girlfriend and my brain said "You know what, you never ACTUALLY read the unibomber's manifesto"
So as a reaction to that ad, I did. It's maybe the most developmentally stunted thing I've ever read but it's eery how I've heard so many dudes spout nonsense like this.
We're all vulnerable to this kind of poison.
This must be the dumbest motherfucker to have ever existed.
I thought he was tortured under MK Ultra which made him what he his.
I think he's onto something with the "oversocialization" thing, but the trouble as usual is he thinks liberals = leftists
He does. He also suffers from the same brain worms as other removed eg rapists, where he believes that just because he thinks something, therefore everybody else also secretly thinks that despite their protestations to the contrary. Incredibly arrogant.
Every time I see removed I have to ask, which word did we learn not to use today?
Yeah, it’s got a super gross history.
The MTG and FGC had me using it for a while until I learned it’s literally rooted in race science.
He's an American with strong conservative undertones, the whole "liberals = leftists" and getting close to the problem, but then missing it by a mile are classics.
While a lot of what he writes is dumb shit, he still has quite a few nuggets of wisdom. "This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society." I really feel that all that is missing from that sentence is a "just" right before "governments". "Revolution is Easier than Reform" I suspect at least a few of us agree with this.
On to the dumb shit. "transexuality was fairly common among some of the American Indian tribes" nice that he knows this, doing a lot better than modern conservatives, not so nice that this is one of his examples of how not all was nice in the pre-industrial revolution times. "Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors" honestly the more I read the more I think he sounds like a smarter version of modern conservatives.
I think "It would be better to dump the whole stinking system and take the consequences." really shows both the core of his beliefs and the flaws inherent in them.
"Many leftists are motivated also by hostility, but the hostility probably results in part from a frustrated need for power."
If you are gonna look at anti-civ theory than Cammate and Desert are the only way to go. That being said, I strongly recommend you don't. Their arguements might be better but why on earth would you bother studying the most misanthropic ideology to ever exist even surpassing fascism.
