Why fascists like him?

why fascists like him?

Attached: 250px-Unabomber.jpg (250x301, 23K)

Other urls found in this thread:

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-when-non-violence-is-suicide
youtube.com/watch?v=QAGxy85R380
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-letter-to-a-turkish-anarchist#toc6
itsgoingdown.org/war-on-amazon-workers-respond-as-online-giant-expands/
youtube.com/watch?v=L7EDz2LNAa8
youtube.com/watch?v=QvumWskiiKw
youtube.com/watch?v=D2ZR9a_vvfk
youtube.com/watch?v=wr5M6oEx2j4&
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Everyone with a soul like Uncle Ted.

Do they? I thought fascists were lefties, and Kaczynski hated lefties.

but he hated nation states, capitalism, the police.

he would have feel at home with traditional african tribes while white nationalists would consider them barbaric and primitive

Attached: 1225a712c352f9c656114e46f4ac4d89.jpg (427x640, 60K)

Have you read his writing?

>Fascist
>leftie

o i am laffin

He also hated Consumerist Capitalism

>being this retarded

They like killing.

sure i read him, and not only the manifesto, he actually called on people to arm themselvs against nazis


>But, realistically, these are not the conditions that will prevail if and when the technoindustrial system collapses. There are a lot of mean people out there: Nazis, Hell’s Angels, Ku Klux Klanners, the Mafia…many others do not belong to recognized groups. They aren’t going to disappear into thin air when the system falls apart. They will still be around. They probably wouldn’t be successful at growing their own food even if they tried, and they won’t try, because people of that type will find it much more congenial to take someone else’s food than to grow their own. And since they are vicious, they may kill you or rape you just for the fun of it, even when they don’t need your food.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-when-non-violence-is-suicide

Attached: dae9c65c02bbee4f90b72a0440517be1.jpg (564x705, 73K)

I can’t wait until somebody kills you

i mean, ted was a literal Antifa member

youtube.com/watch?v=QAGxy85R380

Attached: 386f76634fa8ddef3d66eec62b1af560.jpg (1024x849, 442K)

>theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-when-non-violence-is-suicide
This piece of shit doesn't sound at all like Unabomber. It sounds more like antifa junkie fanfic. Are you able to proove this was actually written by Kaczynski?

Attached: proofs.jpg (600x450, 34K)

He showed how to beat the US government.

Edgy internet kids just say they love him and that he is "brilliant" for (you)s.

The reality is Teddy was a crazy nut who shit in a bucket and will die a virgin.

it sounds a lot like ted, he criticized a common leftist view that presents primitive societies as peacefull hippie-like types.

Human beings in the wild constitute one of the more violent species. A good general survey of the cultures of hunting-and-gathering people is The Hunting Peoples, by Carleton S. Coon, published by Little, Brown and Company, Boston and Toronto, 1971, and in this book you will find numerous examples in hunting-and-gathering societies of violence by human beings against other human beings. Professor Coon makes clear (pages XIX, 3, 4, 9, 10) that he admires hunting-and-gathering peoples and regards them as more fortunate than civilized ones. But he is an honest man and does not censor out those aspects of primitive life, such as violence, that appear disagreeable to modern people.

Thus, it is clear that a significant amount of violence is a natural part of human life. There is nothing wrong with violence in itself. In any particular case, whether violence is good or bad depends on how it is used and the purpose for which it is used.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-letter-to-a-turkish-anarchist#toc6

Great, now we can talk. I think many people on the right are attracted to him, not because he agrees with their end goals (assuming these people are interested in a large state), but because he made some very prescient and insightful critiques of modern society, and the nature of the left. This pessimism speaks to "fascists" in the style of Evola more than outright NatSoc, but both could probably appreciate some of his thinking. Also, the whole "rule of the jungle" has an appeal. The fact that someone is willing to fight them is not necessarily a negative.

I wasn’t aware the left liked him so much?

if by "left" you mean liberals then no, they dont like him. but i member in Seattle at the Anti G20 summits black bloc giving out he's manifesto

What he wanted to prevent was fascism

I'm not arguing he would claim that primitive societies were peaceful. What I find strange that he would suddenly go after muh nazis and muh KKK (as if these groups were relevant at all) without ever mentioning them in his manifesto. I seriously doubt anyone who's not retarded would find David Duke or a bunch of nazi larpers dangerous in post-revolutionary world. This really sounds cringy as fuck and being so fixated on the "nazis" is something I would expect from CNN or Hillary Clinton. The fact that text itself sounds like it was written by a teenager and anarchist library seems to be the only source doesn't help either.

because it's easy to find a common thing to hate, difficult to find a common thing to love.
Kaczynski's anarcho-primitivism is a distilled hatred of all that the humanity has done wrong without embracing anything it has done right, so that both the left and the right (including myself) can easily relate to his sophisticated and deep criticism of modernism, industry and academia, while having literally no qualms with his positive stratagems, which are rare, raw and shallow

actually, there is a huge struggle by the left against Tech companies

itsgoingdown.org/war-on-amazon-workers-respond-as-online-giant-expands/

antifa even mage a film about it

youtube.com/watch?v=L7EDz2LNAa8

and a lecture

youtube.com/watch?v=QvumWskiiKw

Hnng

Kaczynsky is the product of a successfully brainwashed population.

Can’t say as I’m not one. I feel his points about the proliferation and forced adoption of technology would be better received if he didn’t kill innocents

why are we enemies again?

I agree with his end goal as a NAZI. I think both ideologies actually speak to the human spirit and the triumph of the Will. The difference between the two ideologies is that Ted believes the system cannot be controlled, where as NAZIs believe they will have the power to control it.

Both are viable options; in times of weakness and self preservation I lean towards Ted. When my will is empowered, I'm a NAZI. Look into how naturalism flourished in the Thirs Reich.

Attached: IMG_1120.jpg (607x393, 70K)

If the rabbi spergs it's good enough for me. We know you hate nature chaim, no need to dress it in fancy terms

I didn't categorically dismiss the possibility of NatSoc agreeing with him, I just didn't want to make blanket statements where they weren't accurate, but I understand what you're saying.

the white power thing, remember?

Oh so you're a nigger

Attached: IMG_1137.jpg (964x534, 66K)

Unironically calling for ethnostates and what not. I mean look at this place, who would be friends with any of these people

I don't get why looking out for your own people has to be a dealbreaker though. I fully support the right of groups like Black Panthers or even the NOI to organize for the betterment of blacks, and I wish them the best of luck. Strong, self sufficient peoples will likely find much less reason for disagreement. I may not want them as neighbors, but I see no reason why I can't want them healthy and successful in their own right.

Jesus Christ, boomers are all actually this stupid.

>securing the existence and future of your race is bad so we can't like you
This is grade school level thinking.

>I seriously doubt anyone who's not retarded would find David Duke or a bunch of nazi larpers dangerous in post-revolutionary world.
The thing you're calling into question is calling those people useless individuals who would attempt to use stupid brute force to obtain what they cannot manage themselves.

Also, "nazis" come in both flavors. Right and Left. Antifa people saying that people shouldn't be allowed free speech because it doesn't take into consideration peoples' feelings and the inherent nature of privilege are just as fascistic as the people they claim to oppose. And in a collapse they'd become raiders all the same.

You know we're not all unlikeable spergs, right?

nothing says right wing like giving the state complete control of the private sector, amirite

Except that doesn't happen. See: Flanagist Spain, literally anywhere else that had corporatist-influenced Fascist economies. Also, totally unrestricted market activity is an an-cap meme, just as bad as the Communists, both short sighted materialists.

It has power over the economy but the majority of fascist nations lets the market do its own thing, only imposing its will in times of duress. Please open a book.

>The thing you're calling into question is calling those people useless individuals who would attempt to use stupid brute force to obtain what they cannot manage themselves.
I assume around 95% of people would be useless and prone to violence in post-apocalyptic scenario which Ted proposes. So why does the author only focus on small political groups like nazis and the KKK (these ideologies would be irrelevant anyway and I doubt anyone would rally under these banners) while ignoring more obvious threats like, say, ex-military men, ex-policemen, packs or feral niggers or simply a groups of people with no particular agenda or common background who would simply fight for survival?
Propably because it's a piece of leftist propaganda to feed the antifa junkies and not something written by actual Unabomber.

Except the Black Panthers were more about violence than actually promoting the betterment of blacks. Actually promoting their betterment is not well seen by the establishment, and you'll probably be shot(if you even gain popularity to begin with)

Attached: chad separatist vs virgin commie.jpg (625x415, 49K)

you think of blackness and whiteness as coexisting symmetries, this is not the case. blackness is actually antithetical to white society, civil society.

you totally ignore, or ignorant-of the role Race played, and continuous to play withing capitalism.

>Human beings were mobilized in terms of their lowest and most superficial common denominator, and they responded. People who had abandoned their villages and families, who were forgetting their languages and losing their cultures, who were all but depleted of their sociability, were manipulated into considering their skin color a substitute for all they had lost. They were made proud of something that was neither a personal feat nor even, like language, a personal acquisition. They were fused into a nation of white men. The extent of the depletion is revealed by the nonentities the white men shared with each other: white blood, white thoughts, and membership in a white race. Debtors, squatters and servants, as white men, had everything in common with bankers, land speculators and plantation owners, nothing in common with Redskins, Blackskins or Yellowskins. Fused by such a principle, they could also be mobilized by it, turned into white mobs; lynch mobs, “Indian fighters.”

Today, yes, but back when Hampton and Newton were still in leadership positions, I would disagree. You are also correct that it isn't a safe position in this current political climate, but that doesn't mean its the wrong one.

They think access to white people is a human right

Having the economy as the central aspect of an ideology is how you know it is bound to fail. Economics doesn't exist in a vacuum, you can't copy paste models and expect it to work anywhere. Economics are instrinsically connected to the people it's applied to, therefore any politician or movement which ignores that the constitution of a nation sets the precedent for any economic movement has already lost.

the Panthers were not so much a a black separatist group as it was a communists organisation,

This.

Economics must be subservient and dependent on higher human ideals which are emojifies through the practices, beliefs, and spirit of the nation (which is based on those of its people). The economy flows from the well being of the people, not the other way around.

You mean, National Socialists?

Attached: IMG_1005.png (724x611, 125K)

no, i dont, there was nothing "socialist" in National Socialism. do your homework buddy.

youtube.com/watch?v=D2ZR9a_vvfk

Your definition of socialism isn't real socialism.

Do not reply to low effort, b-tier spam threads.
Report them and move on.

Attached: Sage.jpg (1156x2031, 933K)

Ted Kaczynski did nothing wrong. Fuck off pussy.

Attached: ted-kaczynski-the-unabomber-composite-sketch.png (797x480, 435K)

i assume that you alluded that the nazis were somehow pro-worker in the struggle between workers and owners. this is a totally mistaken view

JIDL shill thing to get us to ignore the truth Ted espoused. Go eat some gefilte fish kike.

Very few workers in Germany complained about their owners.

Seems like socialism succeeded in Germany, mate.

Uncle Ted was a saint

Attached: DEXATI20180320104527.png (1247x1871, 824K)

I agree that blackness is incompatible with white civil society, which is why I see forced integration and forced cultural co-mingling to be a negative for all parties involved, not just white people. Also, I know "white" is a modern American ideal, but that doesn't invalidate it. We are still more alike than we are different, compared to other cultures, and would do well to cultivate a sense of shared responsibility based on that, rather than antagonizing existing class differences. I am not an an-cap, I do not think that modern economic inequality is the best we can do.

you must be shitting me, Germany before the rise of the nazis to power was country on the verge of a communist revolution. after the nazis won a worker couldn't complain about the owners because Germany became a totalitarian state, independent trade unions were outlaw'd

>people couldn't criticize the free market and parasitic capitalists in NAZI Germany

Oh now I'm just laughing. You REALLY don't know what fascism is do you?

Attached: IMG_1126.jpg (1024x534, 56K)

prove me otherwise

>X became a totalitarian state, independent trade unions were outlaw'd
funnily enough, that's exactly what happened in CCCP
who do you think had better worker's rights, american "sweat shop" laborers under evil capitalism or 90% of all Soviets who were fucked to work in the kolhoz fields and factories from dawn to dusk for literally zero compensation? d'you suppose they had an actual worker's union to express their work related complaints to? their fucking empl..oops...owner was The Union

Just a small example.
Honestly this would take a pretty deep study to find truth through a sea of propoganda. That said, NAZIsm is clearly distinct from Sovietism, Communism, Capitlaism, or simple "authoritarian totalitarianism" under a dictator. It's a complex social schema that requires a fair bit of contemplation to understand.

Remember that historically inHegelian dialectic terms, Fascism was considered the Synthesis of the thesis liberalism and the antithesis communism.

Attached: IMG_1165.png (750x1334, 259K)

He's an anarcho-primitivist but his autism is admirably intellectually grounded without being a total faggot degenerate like most lefties or a cringy larping man child à la Varg

Reminds me of the Russian nihilists of the mid 19th century. They only could criticize and hate but had no realistic construction of an ideal society in mind. In fact they literally said it was their job to burn it all down, let those that come after us build something up again.

היי ישראליקו

to answer your question, i never said the the USSR wast totalitarian or that it was communist as envisioned by Marx.

the process of primitive accumulation of Capital in Russia is analogous to the primitive accumulation of Capital in the US during slave labor who had no worker rights or trade unions

Lenin did not live long enough to demonstrate his virtuosity as general manager of Russian capital, but his successor Stalin amply demonstrated the powers of the founder’s machine. The first step was the primitive accumulation of capital. If Marx had not been very clear about this, Preobrazhensky had been very clear. Preobrazhensky was jailed, but his description of the tried and tested methods of procuring preliminary capital was applied to vast Russia. The preliminary capital of English, American, Belgian and other capitalists had come from plundered overseas colonies. Russia had no overseas colonies. This lack was no obstacle. The entire Russian countryside was transformed into a colony.

The first sources of preliminary capital were Kulaks, peasants who had something worth plundering. This drive was so successful that it was applied to the remaining peasants as well, with the rational expectation that small amounts plundered from many people would yield a substantial hoard.

The peasants were not the only colonials. The former ruling class had already been thoroughly expropriated of all its wealth and property, but yet other sources of preliminary capital were found. With the totality of state power concentrated in their hands, the dictators soon discovered that they could manufacture sources of primitive accumulation. Successful entrepreneurs, dissatisfied workers and peasants, militants of competing organizations, even disillusioned Party Members,could be designated as counterrevolutionaries, rounded up, expropriated and shipped off to labor camps.

Smashing a piñata of a google bus, this is as retarded as Muslims burning flags. That said, I appreciate the effort made and their points are valid.

its only the beginning of the film

Like? Gibberish. Respect. I don’t like any nba coons or spooks but I respect 1 or 2

REMINDER THAT ALL TED KACZYNSKI POSTS ON Sup Forums ARE SATIRE AND DO NOT QUALIFY FOR NSA/FBI DATAMINING

Ok, now we should be good.

Attached: uncle t.png (1019x725, 905K)

Thanks user.

Ted says those who believe what he says should have a multitude of children as they're more likely to share the sentiments of their parents.

Only the teachings of Ted can save the white race.

Cool, were da white woman at?

he, much like Hitler, was right

Attached: 1516727597606.jpg (3840x2160, 2.06M)

educate yourselves faggots
youtube.com/watch?v=wr5M6oEx2j4&

Attached: oy.png (561x391, 283K)

שלום טובאריש
>it didn't work because it wasn't REAL communism
real worker's rights can be achieved only when workers have power, and workers can't have any power when the employee is the STATE and the union is also the STATE. this situation is a breeding ground to worker's rights violations which were widespread during Lenin as well (my grandparents can attest to this), and also a fertile ground for incredibly widespread corruption (i can attest to this personally)
commies just don't get the concept of man's fallability and the neccessity of separation of powers
state corporatism fascists employed was an ideally better concept, though also prone to corruption but eliminating much of the systemic faults built into marxism-leninism

Read his manifesto. Half of it is the best psychological takedown of the far left ever put in print, ever.

That's why fascists like him. Ted himself disliked fascists, though, and his writings are filled with standard/accurate assessments of "Hitler bad".

This quote bombs Austin.