Ted is a leftist faggot who literally wants to tear down civilisation. If you worship him you are a faggot...

>leftist
retard

Attached: 1530665666178.jpg (634x701, 92K)

He shit talked leftists you imbecile.

Ted is based as fuck, kill yourself you liberal fucktard.

Attached: BBEAF5E8-C30D-4A87-AF89-BBB1B22342DA.jpg (500x631, 59K)

Why are there so many of the same Ted threads repeated with the same images by the same guy?

He seems like a very nice man.

Just another slide thread, although Ted is an interesting dude. I wonder if it's really true that geniuses will always go insane, or maybe it's the insanity that makes them a genius?

>t. liberal trump supporter

>civilization

Attached: 8887C1D5-E6A8-4068-BFFB-5E9C728507BC.jpg (1242x2041, 703K)

Attached: 1458025877350.jpg (1199x1119, 524K)

The world's highest IQ man said that just a few points in IQ make such a radical difference in understanding the world that two people can never truly understand each other that far apart.

Attached: 1530649807324.jpg (418x664, 88K)

Reminder that there are unironical 50+ yo boomers posting on Jow Forums at all times and most statist cocksucking threads are made by them

Not directly relevant, but I had an epiphany last night. I realized that the great gift of discipline isn't increased strength, increased intelligence, or even increased attention, per se. The great gift of discipline is the elimination of decision fatigue, "analysis paralysis", and its resulting ego depletion. The benefit of having concrete goals and routines isn't so much that you know where you're "going", but that you never have the paralyzing doubt and indecisiveness that naturally follows a lack of order in your life. A constant self-defeating internal monologue is the opposite of discipline. An accurate cultivation of discipline is to eliminate the daily puzzle of any question like: is this the right action this hour?; is this really what I want to do with my life?; am I happy right now?; am I doing this correctly?; is this the best use of my time?; should I have done this?;

THAT is what is so damaging to a man's progress. THAT is what destroys energy, will, stamina, contentment. Those questions should never be random or incessant -- they should be asked at a set time weekly or monthly, and then absolutely hatefucked out of your mind every remaining moment of your life. The more I think about it, the vast majority of my fatigue is the result of having to make a decision; the minimization of decision through discipline (routine and habit) is why discipline is so absolutely important.

Attached: 1530606964276.jpg (3200x3008, 2M)

Attached: 1530666048058.jpg (600x357, 46K)

>Guy writes a manifesto calling out leftists, and says conservatives didn't go far enough
>blows shit up, including people, to make a big fucking point of this
>claim he's a leftie

Just because he's big on nature =/= leftist. Half of his writing is on dismantling their narrative you ignorant dick lmao

Attached: Btfo_93e183_6444050.jpg (1200x1667, 126K)

holy shit thats fucked

>defends Jew Ted, says he’s based af
>Jew boogeyman meme

Pick one, literal retard

Attached: C36364E3-FDD5-4328-BFB9-AFB13EB71DDF.jpg (1242x1788, 228K)

Attached: 1530624668099.jpg (675x1200, 148K)

Wtf I love ted kazotsky now

retard

The only logical course of action was to fuck his mom and send the pics to his dad

>1962
>Chad Kaczynski

>Dad calls him 'Nike'

LMAO M8

Good on him

must have been hard for that dad to say but he is right to dod so.

Attached: BASED-FATHER.png (695x524, 341K)

Attached: 1530604278355.png (1005x550, 142K)

Anarcho-Primitivism is quite literally the most right-wing you can possibly get. The ultimate tradition is what humanity has done for hundreds of thousands of years, that is being tribal hunter-gatherers.

Civilization itself is inherently leftist

Ted is really a jew?

Yeah, WTF? Even a lot of these posts are lifted verbatim from the previous Ted thread(s). Deja vu.

Attached: 1530664884369.png (1019x725, 905K)

Kaczynski was resolutely anti-left and wrote extensively criticising them, deconstructing and exposing the psychology of modern leftism. To call him a leftist is ridiculous.

Modern anarcho-primitivism is full of leftists. Kaczynski, who definitely isn't an anarcho-primitivist by the way, wrote several articles completely destroying the anarcho-primitivist mythos and denounced them as retarded leftists.

Tru dat

The following is taken from Industrial Society And Its Future by Ted Kaczynski. Tell me if this guy sounds like a leftist to you.

>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 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 here 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 centuries.

Yeah, but you need resilience. A lot of people plan things and then lose their shit when something comes up (something takes longer than planned, throwing your schedule off, or something else ruins your plans).

The best military commanders always said some paraphrase of a quote that amounted to something like "no plan survives the battlefield." It's because you have to account for the fact that you aren't the only variable, a s you can't entirely control the variables of other variables (particularly the variables of other people) in your plans.

There are some big culprits though. Women for one need to be scheduled to a segment of time in the week and they need to know they're scheduled. The minute you make them part of your life with their expectation of full access to you, your plans are over.

"Liberated woman" is a time and resource waster, and it's a shame we live in this machine-enabled abundance of a present world that has enabled women to think they're equal. Take out industrial society and women aren't equal at all, but they have no problem attempting to convince men that they are strong warriors in front of a green screen, or genius intellectuals when they become a other dime a dozen "endurance challenge" PhD from a corrupted ponzi scheme academic system that tries to boost the scores of anything but white males.

I've watched Jew college professors and their subjective grading. I've also watched women college professors' cunt juice swing papers way above their quality grade.

>9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

> FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

>10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self- hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

>11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative.

>They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

>12. 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. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

>13. 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.)

>14. 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.

RIP

Attached: Heidi Seal white father black father.jpg (550x428, 66K)

This. Anons should read his manifesto. A lot of valuable information to be gleaned.

>15. 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.

> 16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

>17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

That's Professor Ted to you, cocksucker

>18. 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.

Attached: 1530666449240.jpg (720x700, 38K)

>That 20+ boomer who doesn't worship Ted

Bingo. OP is on AIDS.

> 19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

>20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

Read his "manifesto." He wrecks leftists in it as hard anyone to the right of the NatSoc crowd here on Jow Forums. Calling him a "lefty" means either you are ignorant or an idiot. He identifies core issues at the heart of this civilization that have been shaped and exploited by primal social forces--religious, military, economic--above all, the innate human desire to feel in control of themselves and their surrounding environment. As a mentally troubled but brilliant numbers person, he wants simple.clean solutions. But life is messy. Clean starts are rare. And we have to do choose from the best options available usually. And he may be right that the truly individual human being is slipping away for good. The question is can the choices we make slow or stop that? Finding his analysis bracing and insightful doesn't make you an anti-social person but a socially aware person. (Just in case you're reading, FBI...)

> 21. 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.

>22. 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.

>23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

hahahahahahaha fuuuuuck.

And that's not all. He keeps going. Read Industrial Society And Its Future. Kaczynski was not a leftist in any sense of the word. Kaczynski DESTROYED leftism.

washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm??noredirect=on

Either that or a shill. Plenty of both around these parts lately.

He'll always be Uncle Ted to me. I wish I listened to him when I was a young pup.

Attached: America_fuck_yeah.jpg (604x453, 46K)

Completely correct.

That's generally why you have that discussion with her before.
One day you just come home and say jesus christ I saw something like 5 interracial couples.. (to abort it) I hope you never do that, without hating black people I want your kids to look like you, your mother, (name relatives).
Racist rants rarely get you far with wamyn

He also destroyed the right.
His primary argument was that industrial society was toxic to human beings and would lead to extinction.
I don't know about you but that seems to be a universal problem, rather than one or the other.

Attached: 1530660101264.jpg (620x350, 21K)

Too far; too fast.
We went 21 years from being revulsed at seeing two straight men make out like homos in Baseketball in 1998 to 2018 where we are grooming 10 year olds for hormone replacement therapy, celebrating transexual surgery on reality tv and the left pushing for pedophilia.

21 years - too far and too fast.

Attached: American-Gods-pussy_eating_man.png (570x321, 43K)

>He also destroyed the right.
He did, yes.

>I don't know about you but that seems to be a universal problem, rather than one or the other.
Of course, either ends of the political spectrum and everywhere in between still try to govern the industrial-technological system, still blindly promote "progress," technological advancement and economic expedience at the expense of the environment and the freedom and dignity of the human race, therefore they're all part of the problem. But this thread attempts to claim Kaczynski is a leftist, so that's why I didn't mention his criticisms of "conservatives" or the right here.

>His primary argument was that industrial society was toxic to human beings and would lead to extinction.
Teds correct here.

Attached: 1530648570754.png (556x773, 439K)

>Muh leftism
>Muh rightism
Muh sageism. Faggot.

Attached: 1506858413567.jpg (734x729, 91K)

eat my shit you fucking nigger retard

Attached: 1440358189730.jpg (2448x3264, 986K)

Attached: 1530652663093.png (589x404, 343K)

This is a quality cunt.

In what way does pointing out a general problem mean that he destroyed the right? Neoliberalism isn't right wing despite the Republican political coalition of cultural conservatives and neoliberal capitalists. Philosophically speaking, belief in universal progress and univeral truth is leftist. The core of the right wing thought is that abstract universal truths are useless and that individual reasoning is suspect when criticizing ways of running society that have developed over generations. Ie, being right wing just means believing that relevant truths are an intergenerational projects contained within communities. His primary argument against industrial society doesn't actually interact with right wing political ideology either way.

Attached: 1530647374890.gif (700x900, 58K)

>His primary argument against industrial society doesn't actually interact with right wing political ideology either way.
It absolutely does when you consider his hypothesis that industrial society has escaped rational human control, and that the industrial-technological system governs the political or economic system supposedly in charge of it more than they govern it. In most (but not all) of the western world it's next to impossible to have a truly conservative, right wing government without serious disruption to the industrial-technological system.

His criticism of the right wasn't just "pointing out a general problem." It's pointing out a massive, fundamental flaw that can never again be resolved.

bump

TED is worth writing to

>In most (but not all) of the western world it's next to impossible to have a truly conservative, right wing government without serious disruption to the industrial-technological system.
This statement does all of the work in linking Ted's anti-industrial argument to conservative political theory, and is comprised of multiple sweeping and unsupported assertions of your making (not Ted's). Read some Burke instead of shitposting nonsense on Mongolian basketweaving forums.

Only if you ignore the context given by the first statement, as you have.

>Read some Burke instead of shitposting nonsense on Mongolian basketweaving forums.
No.

The first statement was a paraphrase of Ted's argument. The second statement is your argument that 1) Ted addressed right wing ideology; and 2) that he "destroyed" it. This second statement only served as evidence that you 1) don't know what conservatism actually is; 2) don't know how to formulate a coherent argument; 3) don't know what "context" means.

>unironically having this as a background on your electronics

This guy made Ronald Reagan look like Michael Dukakis. Mikhail Gorbachev called him a genius. Chairman Mao hired him as his personal advisor.

>The first statement was a paraphrase of Ted's argument.
I plainly said as much when I referred to it as his hypothesis directly before paraphrasing it. There was no choice but to paraphrase it, I'm certainly not going to sit here and write it all out in full am I?

>The second statement is your argument that 1) Ted addressed right wing ideology; and 2) that he "destroyed" it.
Learn how to read. My second statement was addressing your incorrect assertion that, and I quote, "his primary argument against industrial society doesn't actually interact with right wing political ideology." And I told you that it absolutely does, and I explained why. The second statement doesn't mention anything about him "destroying it." I happen to think he did destroy it (as it exists today not as it exists in political theory that has been rendered impractical by the global technoindustrial machine), but that statement makes no mention of that.

>This second statement only served as evidence that you 1) don't know what conservatism actually is
I know very well what it is, thank you. My point is that under the conditions imposed by the industrial-technological system as it is today it's next to impossible to implement it without severe disruption, for the reasons stated when paraphrasing Kaczynski's hypothesis in the first statement.

>2) don't know how to formulate a coherent argument
No, that is clearly you.

> 3) don't know what "context" means.
And how exactly did you arrive at this conclusion? Don't be so ridiculous.