all 15 comments

[–]comments 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is a bit tangential to OP, but I want to leave this comment about TK since his work was mentioned in OP.

I found this article about TK interesting:

Except for [his manifesto's] call to violence, the ideas it expresses are perfectly ordinary and unoriginal, shared by many Americans. Its pessimism over the direction of civilization and its rejection of the modern world are shared especially with the country’s most highly educated. The manifesto is, in other words, an academic—and popular—cliché.

 

The Unabomber philosophy bears a striking resemblance to many parts of Harvard’s Gen Ed syllabus. Its anti-technology message and its despairing depiction of the sinister forces that lie beneath the surface of civilization, its emphasis on the alienation of the individual and on the threat that science poses to human values—all these were in the readings. And these kinds of ideas did not affect Kaczynski alone—they reached an entire generation, and beyond.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/06/harvard-and-the-making-of-the-unabomber/378239/

Sometimes I think all this anti-tech stuff is specifically anti-angloism but also more general anti-white-ism born out of resentment for its success. The industrial revolution started in England, after all. And technology keeps a group strong and capable of protecting itself and developing. Why encourage people to feel disconnected from it instead of proud of their collective accomplishments as a people?

[–]AFutureConcern 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't agree. The majority of people are not reactionary and anti-leftist like Ted. I think perhaps leftists think that they are pessimistic over the direction of civilization, but really they are fighting for the system, as Kaczynski described in "The System's Neatest Trick". I'd say the reason his ideas have gained so much popularity are mainly because of his description of leftists, not the anti-technology message per se. Anti-whiteism is focused on materialism and the unequal distribution of wealth throughout the world that was "unfairly stolen" by whites. It actually denies the impact of white technology on the world, because then whites themselves would have created the extra wealth.

[–]comments 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Interesting.

I'd say the reason his ideas have gained so much popularity are mainly because of his description of leftists

What does he say about leftists?

[–]AFutureConcern 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A couple of choice quotes:

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.


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.

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.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I like the idea, it'd be great. There are tons of right-wing books worth discussing, we could use this to promote some under-rated writers alongside the popular classics, although I think even leftist, liberal or even classical political literature could be included to even though many disagree with them or they are outdated just so we can understand their logic and sometimes even they can provide us with new ideas.

[–]AFutureConcern 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is a good idea, books that are available to download are probably best to get maximum engagement.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Heads up that 'book clubs' rarely work out because people don't make enough commitment to keep up with the reading. I think it has something to do with it being a digital and not an IRL book club. We also don't have quite enough traffic on saidt or on this particular sub yet to support a healthy book club.

If you guys do choose to do a book club let me know what book you choose and I will help you find a pdf, pin it to the sub and also post/pin it on s/runebooks

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Heads up that 'book clubs' rarely work out because people don't make enough commitment to keep up with the reading. I think it has something to do with it being a digital and not an IRL book club. We also don't have quite enough traffic on saidt or on this particular sub yet to support a healthy book club.

If you guys do choose to do a book club let me know what book you choose and I will help you find a pdf, pin it to the sub and also post/pin it on s/runebooks

[–]Erasmus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Bi-weekly would be better for me; lots going on these days. I'm not sure what kind of public conversation you can have about books like "Siege", though.

"The Camp of the Saints" by Jean Raspail might be a good choice, and Raspail just passed away recently.

"Day of the Rope" by Black Pilled's Devon Stack.

"Revolt Against The Modern World" by Julius Evola.

"White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century" by Jared Taylor (downloadable here)

I'm game for "Culture of Critique" as well.

[–]Aureus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Siege is probably a must since I've heard so much about it.

Please, for the love of God, don't. Nothing has been more provably wrong or self-destructive than this book.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]Aureus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Remember the group of nutjobs that let in a Salafist Muslim kid because they liked how radical he was, and then he turned around and murdered them all for disrespecting his religion? That group was directly inspired by this book.

    If you've heard of "glow-in-the-darks", it's their book of choice.

    [–]HamiltonWasJewish[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Care to explain? I haven't read it yet.

    [–]Aureus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Copypasting from my other comment:

    Remember the group of nutjobs that recruited a Salafist Muslim because they liked how extreme he was, and then he murdered them all for disrespecting his religion? That nutjob group was directly inspired by this book.

    Siege is a book that says the only ideology that matters is extremism. I'm not using that as a scare term, it's fully what the author believes. To the author, it's fine if you're a Satanist, an Islamic extremist, or a communist, as long as you are extreme and willing to commit murder to destroy "the system". He singles out the murder of Sharon Tate and her unborn child by the Manson Family as a glowing example of an action he supports.

    If you've heard of "glow-in-the-darks", it's their book of choice. Every group and person it touches goes to dogshit. The book has been out for ~50 years and done nothing but utterly destroy the lives of those who have followed it. It's a fucking cancer and I could rebut it for hours. Please do not make it part of the book club.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Siege is a book that says the only ideology that matters is extremism. I'm not using that as a scare term, it's fully what the author believes. To the author, it's fine if you're a Satanist, an Islamic extremist, or a communist, as long as you are extreme and willing to commit murder to destroy "the system". He singles out the murder of Sharon Tate and her unborn child by the Manson Family as a glowing example of an action he supports.

    No it doesn't. Mason preaches that random extremism always leads to shit, while organized chaos leads to a nation. If you really are that uneducated on what Mason believes, you should try reading Mason's own website

    The "satanism" boogeyman is fucking laughable at. Even fucking wikipedia admits that only one-two branches of atomwaffen are associated with satanist ideology.

    As for the muzzie thing, that did actually happen, the muslim was a plant by the three letter organization to further weaken AWD. Their deaths are addressed here