"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." How in the heck does Kaczynski know my son-in-law? Seriously, this explains him perfectly. It is scary how right Ted was about the Left. So I expect we won't hear diddly about this on the MSM.
I'm only half-way into your article Karlyn, and I had anticipated the words sadist and masochist at some point, which I did... I have always believed the Left is absolutely Sado-Masochistic b/c they begin early on to be utterly passive-aggressive. If we re-read all those things they are b/c of what they feel about themselves as losers, then it's clear as day they are self-destructive to the point that they would attempt, if and when they could, to destroy everything around them, as well, if they don't self-destruct first.
For those who follow Torah/Bible, we know the story of King Solomon and the two prostitute mothers. One rolled over her baby and accidentally suffocated it. Her claim that the other woman's child (which was still living) is really her own took her claim to the highest venue -- King Solomon (think of it as the Supreme Court). As we know, he suggested the solution of dividing the living baby in half and giving each mother one half.
What kind of person would this solution work for? That was the lesson of the story. It is deeply psychological. And Marxism is a deeply psychological ideology. It brings forward all the elements that are good and bad, and decides upon the solutions that will punish everyone equally.
Remember when teachers would not punish the instigator of a problem in school, but rather they gave everyone detention? Let's ask ourselves why would we punish everyone for someone else's fault? To prove that society would suffer over even one individual's bad decisions or actions? Well, that was the ultimate lesson I got out of it, even as an adolescent. I wasn't about to view it as taking the blame for someone else in order to protect the idiot who pulled it off b/c we're just kids and we all do stupid things. No. I saw it as the dangerous results of not disciplining the problematic individual from the group. Fuck this collective punishment crap... Why knock myself out persevering in school if we're gonna get punished for someone else's shit?
This logically creates a low morale anywhere it is practiced... school, work, among family, friends, civic groups, and governments. But just understanding this is not going to solve it. Indeed, it is the very thing that will herald in the ridiculous surveillance that is already happening in some places, and will overtake the planet resulting from some "incident" in the near future. That is already in progress. And it means to protect us from ourselves, with social credit points, and all sorts of cool things that losers will enjoy collecting b/c living life among the capable has literally blown their head gaskets a long time ago, and this is their only way cope. This reality has not been lost on the mega-wealthy class of the absolute production-owners, and their pet politicians, ironically waving all the correct flags at their little sado-masochistic fan-base.
"so accurate they're scary" - terrifying, actually! And not just because this is coming from the Unabomber (though that is surely part of it). This describes some of the contributors (one in particular) at Counterpunch (counterpunch.org.
OK, if anyone is really curious, and has some aspirin or Tylenol handy, I would recommend this. OK, "recommend" is a strong word.
I'm not comparing Paul Street to the Unabomber. But having just read it (and gotten very angry, as he viciously insults some people I follow and respect), it is fresh in my mind and these excerpts resonant with my thoughts about Street's columns. (His columns all read like this. Thus, I don't advised reading more than one--if you can even get halfway through this one. )
OK, page is taking all night and I don't have all night. lol. Also, if I start reading it again, I'm just going to get pissed off, and I have already stood in line at Safeway today, and that's enough masochism for one day. lol.
"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." How in the heck does Kaczynski know my son-in-law? Seriously, this explains him perfectly. It is scary how right Ted was about the Left. So I expect we won't hear diddly about this on the MSM.
VERY interesting. Than you.
Wow! I can't believe that was written in the 90s. I guess we were warned. Never thought about seeking out and reading his manifesto.
#213. An example -- ACLU.
I'm only half-way into your article Karlyn, and I had anticipated the words sadist and masochist at some point, which I did... I have always believed the Left is absolutely Sado-Masochistic b/c they begin early on to be utterly passive-aggressive. If we re-read all those things they are b/c of what they feel about themselves as losers, then it's clear as day they are self-destructive to the point that they would attempt, if and when they could, to destroy everything around them, as well, if they don't self-destruct first.
For those who follow Torah/Bible, we know the story of King Solomon and the two prostitute mothers. One rolled over her baby and accidentally suffocated it. Her claim that the other woman's child (which was still living) is really her own took her claim to the highest venue -- King Solomon (think of it as the Supreme Court). As we know, he suggested the solution of dividing the living baby in half and giving each mother one half.
What kind of person would this solution work for? That was the lesson of the story. It is deeply psychological. And Marxism is a deeply psychological ideology. It brings forward all the elements that are good and bad, and decides upon the solutions that will punish everyone equally.
Remember when teachers would not punish the instigator of a problem in school, but rather they gave everyone detention? Let's ask ourselves why would we punish everyone for someone else's fault? To prove that society would suffer over even one individual's bad decisions or actions? Well, that was the ultimate lesson I got out of it, even as an adolescent. I wasn't about to view it as taking the blame for someone else in order to protect the idiot who pulled it off b/c we're just kids and we all do stupid things. No. I saw it as the dangerous results of not disciplining the problematic individual from the group. Fuck this collective punishment crap... Why knock myself out persevering in school if we're gonna get punished for someone else's shit?
This logically creates a low morale anywhere it is practiced... school, work, among family, friends, civic groups, and governments. But just understanding this is not going to solve it. Indeed, it is the very thing that will herald in the ridiculous surveillance that is already happening in some places, and will overtake the planet resulting from some "incident" in the near future. That is already in progress. And it means to protect us from ourselves, with social credit points, and all sorts of cool things that losers will enjoy collecting b/c living life among the capable has literally blown their head gaskets a long time ago, and this is their only way cope. This reality has not been lost on the mega-wealthy class of the absolute production-owners, and their pet politicians, ironically waving all the correct flags at their little sado-masochistic fan-base.
"so accurate they're scary" - terrifying, actually! And not just because this is coming from the Unabomber (though that is surely part of it). This describes some of the contributors (one in particular) at Counterpunch (counterpunch.org.
OK, if anyone is really curious, and has some aspirin or Tylenol handy, I would recommend this. OK, "recommend" is a strong word.
I'm not comparing Paul Street to the Unabomber. But having just read it (and gotten very angry, as he viciously insults some people I follow and respect), it is fresh in my mind and these excerpts resonant with my thoughts about Street's columns. (His columns all read like this. Thus, I don't advised reading more than one--if you can even get halfway through this one. )
OK, page is taking all night and I don't have all night. lol. Also, if I start reading it again, I'm just going to get pissed off, and I have already stood in line at Safeway today, and that's enough masochism for one day. lol.
Currently, Woke has gained much control over the United Church of Christ and is rapidly gaining control over the UU Church.
The "Fifth Principle Project: is resisting.
It makes me worry about my own sanity.
I seem to agree with what he has written so far.
I have not finished it.
I know some things about the MK ultra program because of the research I have done a few years back.
So their programming will always have a trigger, and when that event or thing they were programmed for is done or said.. they will off themselves.
So, what has changed from yesterday that may be a trigger for him to kill himself?
It's like now that everything he wrote about is here now he can go.
So, most likely it will be something that he wrote about in his Manifesto?
Because, now when he dies … EVERYONE will be looking it up and reading it?
or is this another distraction ?