It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Psychology of Modern Leftism- Theodore Kaczynski

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
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.


Yes, they have striven since time began to undermine their own nations, castrating them in face of the enemy. Enemies whom they sympathize with and seek to comfort. Liberals have not created any civilizations. Hard working and often brutal people have done that. Liberals are unable to exist in a harsh world and only come into being when life is comfortable, giving them the luxury of undermining the very institutions and beliefs that have brought them such luxury.


The reason you can vote today is because of liberal policies.
The reason you have a public education is because of liberal policies.

A worthless vote, and a terrible system of public education. I'm not thankful for either of those. Though I wouldn't blame our corrupt government on the left alone. Today it is liberals who continually push the bounds of what is acceptable. Today it is gay marriage, tomorrow it will be bestiality or pedophilia. If an animal can give consent, as has been agreed in several leftist countries, then why not a child? Liberal policies saved our forests from man, but they also set them alight. Some cutting is necessary. Liberal policies have made our country dependent on foreign powers.

I agree with Mr. Kaczynski's assessment in general. I have talked to many leftists who subtly indicate that minority groups are inferior. I would just as soon give them a fair shot, but liberals insist on giving them a boost up. They will not allow anyone to work for what they want. I've talked to many a liberal who sarcastically praise the destruction of the human race via plague, war, or meteor. They're a depressed and a childish people.




posted on Dec, 1 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy
 


What a crock.

I am a leftist as it were because I care... I care about the less fortunate... I care about the environment... I care about justice...

... and I am grateful for the opprotunities I've had.

None of that pesudo psycho babble applies to me or anyone I know who is leftist, liberal, progressive whatever.

I am not even going to debate this nonsense so this is my first and last post here... its not worth my time.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by grover]



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy
 


The Psychology of Modern Rightism - Jeffery Dahmer. There I said it so it must be true!!! I've never seen more fail in a single post in my life lol. Ted Kaczinsky was CRAZY. There's nothing else here, move along.




posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Liberals are the reason people have rights.

Enough said.

[edit on 12/19/2008 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


Perhaps NOT enough said...

Liberals Anti-Second Amendment

Liberal free-speech hypocrisy

Liberals Deny Blacks the Right to Vote...Freely

Liberals support rights, as long as they are the rights that fit in the Liberal Agenda.

Take for instance the so called "Fairness Doctrine" and the obvious hypocrisy inherent there.

The Libs are trying to supposedly make the air waves "Fair" by FORCING all radio stations to broadcast what the Government calls equal time. In reality it is simply an attempt to silence the massive popularity of Conservative Talk Radio.

If the Libs really did care about rights, they would not be pushing this agenda. Why? Simple.

Talk radio has a HUGE following on the Conservative side. Rush 23 million listeners, Hannity 13 million and so on. Yet as is so very typical, the Liberals are trying to show us "What is best for us" and regulate what we listen to. How is that standing up for my rights to listen to what I choose?

How can anyone with even a fraction for an IQ, deny the rabid Liberal attempts to outlaw guns? Gun ownership is a right guaranteed in the Constitution. Do the Liberals care? Of course not, they know better then we do what is best for us.

Liberals want to ban smoking.
Liberals want to ban Trans Fat

So according to the Liberals, I can not decide for myself if I want to smoke, or eat French Fries that actually have taste...

So, not enough said at all.

The Core Conservative Principle is to leave people alone and let them:

1. Protect themselves
2. Eat what they want
3. Smoke if they choose
4. Send their children to private schools if they choose to

The Liberal Principle is much simpler:

1. Do what we tell you
2. It's only a right if we say it is

Semper



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Semper, semper. You know I can't defend what every liberal out there does. So Kathy Griffin thinks all blacks need to do this or that. Not my problem.

As far as the "Fairness Doctrine"... what do you really have to lose? Unless what you listen to is not "Fair and Balanced" (
Fox News), then you have nothing to worry about. Isn't that really the issue?

Why would you want to listen to a program that is leaning so far to one side, that you can never be sure you are getting the truth. I listen to talk radio (I'll probably have an aneurysm by 30), and I've watched CNN - and talk radio is by far the more biased and leaning platform.

CNN, though clearly biased against Bush, can still report things he does without always putting a negative spin on it. You cannot say the same for Rush Limbaugh. You will always hear Rush Limbaugh say, "Barack Obama, today, decided to sign a bill in that blah, blah blah... due to his signing the bill, all conservatives need to fear for their (insert rhetoric fear of democrat)."

Never will he say, "Obama signed this bill into place today...", and let that be that. There always has to be a negative spin on everything.

Talk radio promotes more fear than any other news I've ever read. Isn't the Fairness Doctrine kind of like ATS? Sure, you can have wild theories, you can say whatever you want, but there will be someone there to put you in check (and vice versa). What is wrong with that?

Also, you cannot consider it hindering of free speech, due to the fact that the news is basically an oligarchy with difficult entry barriers. It's not a free market.

[edit on 12/20/2008 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
As far as the "Fairness Doctrine"... what do you really have to lose?

Only our rights to free speech and a free press.



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Like I said, there is no such thing as free press anymore since the system has such high entry barriers. Talk radio isn't free press - you either rip on liberals all day, or you aren't on their program.

What's free press about that?



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


What's free press about it?

IM I know you far better than that!!!!

How can you make such a statement with a straight face?

But I will humor you anyway..

It is very simply the finest example of free press.. It is exactly this:

What ever the STATION OWNERS want to put on the radio....

See "Owners" not "Government Sanctioned Lackeys"

Free, individuals that risked their own capital to invest in a Radio Program, or Station and in our FREE society, (Well now anyway) they can PLAY ANYTHING THEY LIKE...

Actually more accurately, they produce and put on air what they think will draw listeners to the program to obtain advertising moneys...

Now as obviously Lib Radio is possibly one of the biggest failures in Capitalist History, the Libs want the Government to FORCE, FREE radio station OWNERS to produce and present what has already been established as a failure!!!!

That is not just Socialism, it is borderline Fascism...

It is the single most incredibly stupid idea in a long line of stupid ideas...

I mean, I understand their reasoning. If you can't beat them fair, change the law...

But Libs standing up for Rights???

You have GOT to be kidding...

Funniest darn thing I have heard in a long time.

Semper



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
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.
.


"the libral mind is"

"This is just how the JEW mind is"

" this is just how the black mind is"

divide and divide -


So I'm a liberal... Since you know how my mind IS - how do I feel about guns?


What do I think about the financial bail out?

How about terists?



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 



Now as obviously Lib Radio is possibly one of the biggest failures in Capitalist History, the Libs want the Government to FORCE, FREE radio station OWNERS to produce and present what has already been established as a failure!!!!

That is not just Socialism, it is borderline Fascism...

But Libs standing up for Rights???

You have GOT to be kidding...

Funniest darn thing I have heard in a long time.

Semper


You mean the biggest failures in capitalist history before BUSH?

$700,000,000,000.00 for the money men.


Them librals...

Libs standing up for rights???

I guess its the conservatives who wanted women to vote???
.

Name one instance when conservatives stood up for rights besides a fetus or a CEO???



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by The Bald Champion
 


Sheesh... You are aware of Google aren't you?


Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans

As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

Source


Civil Rights Act of 1964

The original House version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Source

Republicans on Gun Control

I could go on and on, but as usual, arguing Facts (Conservatism) vs Emotions (Liberals) is a waste of productive time..

It is quite simple..

You can POSTULATE and present OPINION all you want to. The FACTS are very clear..

Conservatives are ALL about personal RIGHTS...

Facts

Simple

Semper



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


While the party names change, the values stay the same. Democrats and Republicans are not the same as they were over 100 years ago.

reply to post by semperfortis
 


You talk a good game, semperfortis, but last time I checked, this is what the Fairness Doctrine was all about:

Fairness Doctrine

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.


What is wrong with that? Why should you be afraid of having someone say, "Well wait a second Rush...", when he goes off on one of those crazy tangents that isn't even close to being correct.

All the Fairness Doctrine is supposed to do is make sure things are fair. You can still say pretty much whatever you want, but someone will be there with an opposing view.

Again, radio isn't a free market. I can't say, "I'd like to open a radio station". The entry barriers are huge. We must rely on the government to make sure that our news agencies are held to a certain standard, while not regulating what is said.

I don't want the government all up in their business, I'd just like to know that someone is always there with a big "but that's not exactly true" on stand-by (on all channels).

[edit on 12/20/2008 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 



What is wrong with that?


????????

The Government TELLING a private business what they can do and what they can not do; and you ask what's wrong with that?

Come on!!!!

And that sad old tale of "Switching Parties" is old and inaccurate...

And YOU know it!!!



I'm sending you a U2U also, you will get a kick out of it..

Semper



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 




Thats funny I am talking about conservatives and liberals.

MLK was a Republican.

But he was not a conservative!

IF you would look at the first two syllables...

Conserve - To maintain or holdback.

For proper definitions.



adj.
1. [bold]Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.[/bold]
Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.






3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions



Maintain - oppose change ...

YUP the civil rights movement was based upon maintaining the status quo




LIBRAL
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.




[3] (Note that a Republican is not necessarily the same thing as a "conservative" and a Democrat is not necessarily the same thing as a "liberal," as party affiliations are often wrongly used by journalists and pundits as synonyms for political outlooks. Also note that the mere fact that someone calls oneself a conservative or a liberal does not make that someone so.)


So would you allow gays in the military?

Do you believe anyone in love should be allowed to marry?

How about the indefinite detainment of suspected Terists?


All three things are highly controversial and are the status quo.



1. [bold]Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.[/bold]




b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others;


Yup I'm a libral!



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 



What is wrong with that?



And that sad old tale of "Switching Parties" is old and inaccurate...



So you are saying that all the cops beating on the AA in sixties were librals?



Think about it???

ALL them riot geared up cops believed in free love, pot, end the war in vietnam and allow blacks and white to intermarry. They was librals alright!


Champion



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by The Bald Champion
 


Why do you equate Police Officers with Conservatism?

Is your argument in that direction, that limited in scope?

Would you not say that Police Officers like Construction workers, postal run the gamut of political ideology..

The simple fact is that this Administration has employed more minorities than any previous.

Conservative Administrations always do.

Yet, still the hyperbole and opinion goes on. Just look at the previous posts to see the spin and attempts to rewrite history.

The facts are clear and yet the emotions of the Left will never allow them to see facts.

What hits me as incredibly mind numbing is that it happens here on ATS. I expect the average public to misunderstand and deflect, but seeing the closed minds on here, is amazing.

Simple Fact

Conservatism is supportive of individual rights
Liberalism supports Government intervention

Any doubts??? Want proof???

Why have none of the posters addressed the Liberals wanting to destroy the Second Amendment of the US Constitution?

That is absolutely the most blatant example..And completely without rebuttal...

Google is FULL of links, so I wont bother posting any on this post (See Above). You are all really smart enough that it is not necessary to post more. But you wont listen. Why? You are emotionally involved. So much so that you warp history to fit your agenda.

No way to argue that

Semper

Edit to add:

Posting external information without the links is worthless as well as against the T&C

You have no argument if you cant share your source!

[edit on 12/20/2008 by semperfortis]



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by The Bald Champion
 


Why do you equate Police Officers with Conservatism?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is your argument in that direction, that limited in scope?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conservatism is supportive of individual rights
Liberalism supports Government intervention

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posting external information without the links is worthless as well as against the T&C

You have no argument if you cant share your source!

[edit on 12/20/2008 by semperfortis]


I used the example of policemen in the 60's because I was trying to paint a picture (ineffectively). The civil rights movement was propelled by AA and liberal groups.

The resistance to the civil rights movement was spear headed by white conservatives???



Young white liberals participated in the marches and the protests that helped pressure
legislative action.

I must ask are you kidding???

Anyhow I was using your example of the civil rights movement.

I did include gay rights, detainee rights currently.

So if conservatives are for individual rights - why oppose gay marriage?

Why oppose detainee's legal representation?

And yes the united states government is intended to be a vehicle for the people.
Being a nation of laws the government is ours to shape = government = citizens will.
Are you suggesting breaking laws or rioting to change things, conservative don't like that much.

Please answer me on the gays and detainees.

As far as republican - liberal shift.

Why was Illinois a red state in the 20's and a blue state now?

How about Tennessee being a blue state in the 20's - red now?

Wonder why...

Dixiecrats, maybe?

Anyhow I want to put this to the test, I will start a thread.



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
First off, everyone who is banging on about how Kaczynski was a crazy man should know that he wrote this paper (or at least the foundations of this paper) very early while he was still a well respected Professor. Using the same "shoot the messenger" rational we can easily dismiss the entire "science" of psychoanalysis since its founder was an admitted drug addict.

A person's actions and vices in no way compromises the validity of their ideas. It is up to us, as a third party, to judge the validity of the arguments objectively or we are no better than the ignorant peasants of the middle ages who knew certain books or paintings were evil because the local bishop said so.

While reading "Industrial Society and Its Future", ask yourself, "If this was the missing work of Nicolas Tesla or Ron Paul would I discount what the author says about humans, technology, and society as quickly?"

Second, you should understand that he was describing the aspects of "state-supporting" or technology dependent "liberal" peoples. Kaczynski was writing to support his main thesis that the structure of modern industrial society is incompatible with the psychology of the human animal.

Try to understand that Kaczynski may not be using the word liberal to mean what you think it means. You have to read the whole text to really understand that Kaczynski's liberals would probably be better off called "statists." After all, the state is an extremely powerful, pervasive, and destructive form of technology.

A complete understanding of Kaczynski's "liberals" is better served with a quick reading of the parts of the text the OP left out:
---
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. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.

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. 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 principle.

Jon


[edit on 12.20.2008 by Voxel]



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Here we go, the new thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think I an cruising for a stroke


Come join if you wish.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join