Left wing anarchists are bluepi-

>left wing anarchists are bluepi-

>implying teddy was a leftist

Uncle Ted wasn't a leftist

>Kaczynski
>left wing

Kaczynski rambles through an entire manifesto talking about the problems with leftism. He is not left wing.

>criticising contemporary leftism means someone isn't left wing
I guess pic related makes Hoppe a leftist

look at this dumbfuck who thinks Ted was a leftist, look at him and laugh

Retard detected. Anyone who is a fan of Ted knows about his critique of leftists

>hurr more state = more socialism
what a retard

As stated here, Ted was neither leftist or rightist. Sup Forums could learn something from him on not getting caught in staunch party idealogy. Some qoutes from Uncle Ted:

“Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society.”

“The leftist is anti-individualistic... He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs.”

“The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.”

"When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo “retraining,” no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity, and for good reason: If human needs were put before technical necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse. 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.”

"If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later."

The left as it exists now is a joke.

~T. Tree Hugger

Oh, and one more, for all you user that were here before Gamergate, before pepe was alt right and only felt bad, man, and like to pee pee with his pants down, before Habbo...back when Snacks was back and moot was #1 poster on Sup Forums:

"What worries me is that I might in a sense adapt to this environment and come to be comfortable here and not resent it anymore."

Don't forget, once you're here...

...

>left wing
quintessential brit shows his arse

>Teddy
>left wing

retard

How could you perceive an anti-government, anti-technology terrorist as anything other than conservative?

wanting to revert back to pre-electronics is an extremely conservative position

Damn right.

I only read up to point #59 of his manifesto, but I have some questions for him and you:

1:) First off let me say what I agree with thus far: I agree with Ted Kaczynski that industrialization has led to copious issues such as a.), leftist's thought stemming from feelings of inferiority and oversocializaiton; b.) modern conservatives placing more value on economic growth rather than preserving communal stability; c.) society becoming more about productivity and blind obedience, making us all analogous to factory farm animals.

2:) Where I disagree with Ted Kaczynski is his obsession with autonomy within the power process and the belief coexisting with nature, such as American frontier way of life with hunting game, WILL BE SUFFICIENT** in creating a harmonious community.

3:) One can say these two elements are necessary for peaceful societies: autonomy within the power process and the belief coexisting with nature. However, I am bringing attention to sufficiency*.

4:) It is insufficient on account of Ted Kaczyinski committing the same error I see among many Americans: to place political concerns above the ethical or spiritual dimension. In other words, Kazyinski seems to operate based off positivist thought rather than approach metaphysical questions that have been of paramount importance to people throughout history.

5:) Let me give an example: Consider x civilization living to y civilization. Both are pre-industrial, but they have entirely different ways of life centered around the construction of different normative values. In other words, their ethos are different regardless of similar environment. From Aztecs to Buddhists of Tang, this is evident, but something Kaczynski ignores.

6:) Since traditional culture can be considered as equally important in molding the person and the trajectory the community evolves, then I would ask this question to Mr. Kaczynski: How can one speak of what is good if there is not some greater metaphysical (cont.)

...

to reality?

7:) Such an issue is prevalent among the thought-processes of many. Questions such as life's intrinsic specialness, eschatology, and so forth are relegated under a form of American pragmatism that is autistic and disconnected with the teleology necessary for the construction of ethos.

8:) I predict that Mr. Kaczynski would say my questions are due to oversocialization and that I am placing too much emphasis on the production of normative values, which may be seen as hindering autonomous power process of many. However, my point is that even in pre-industrial societies, we have seen hierarchies naturally form, the centering around metaphysical concepts like "Buddhanature", "Christ", and so forth. In fact, I will say where Kaczynski will ultimately fall into the trap of referencing an implict metaphysical scheme when arguing: whether materialist-physicalist, pagan, Buddhist, Christian, or what have you, it is impossible to avoid metaphysical claims, or the articulation of its impossibility, when justifying certain moral claims.

9:) From hunting, to treating elders, to revering life or nature, to etc., there is a presupposition of kernel metaphysical claims.

10:) Metaphysics are all unfalsifiable, but important in giving ground to all values. Where I would agree with Kaczynski is that industrialization has led to the commodification of these traditional values. For example, celibacy is no longer valued on spiritual grounds, people believe they can learn everything about human nature by reference to the brain, physicalism is growing and making people literally think they are automatons, and more. Why does Kaczynski ignore these predicaments?

11:) I believe Kaczynski would have benefited from more reading of Evola, philosophy and more than to just approach the issue of industrialization from a pragmatic angle.

12:) In fact, I will argue pragmatism is the core tenant of industrialization where productivity and utilitarianism are taken for granted. Kaczynski's manifesto frequently makes the error in assuming utilitarianism to be a given.

On further thought, I do not think he is as intelligent as people think. He may have a high IQ and great critical thinking skills, but he seems to poorly connect dots based off being poorly read in some important areas.

I sure as hell am not going to help a bunch of luddites who disagree on what I traditionally find important. Sharing a common ground in this regard is not enough to share a common ground to what is important to me. Some of these luddites will be degenerate hippes, some Christian fundies, some even muzzies... We cannot coexist.

In fact, I will argue mankind's history has always been one of tension due to disagreements in regards to implementation of traditional values or its critique or more.

he's an anarcho primitivist but he doesn't like other left wing anarcho primitivists either.