Ted Kaczynski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Kaczynski

oli nero, vaikka lähettelikin kirjepommeja. Hän tiesi paljon yhteiskunnasta, paljon enemmän kuin tavallinen sheeple.

Tässä kuitenkin Tedin manifesti:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future

Laitan tähän muutamia otteita tekstistä.

Introduction

1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering—even in "advanced" countries.

3. 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.

5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.

The psychology of modern leftism

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 a 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.)

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

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.)

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.

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.

Oversocialization

24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.

25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people.

26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of himself. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.

Aion lukea tämän kokonaaan.
14627
Äänestä

Muut lukivat myös

Vastaukset 14

Vanhimmat

naurattamaan, kun palstalaisia katsoo .. :)

The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. [...] Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people.

Äänestä
  • "In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people."

    Naiset ainakin retkahtavat renttuihin juuri tällä periaatteella.

    Äänestä

  • sp86 kirjoitti:

    "In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people."

    Naiset ainakin retkahtavat renttuihin juuri tällä periaatteella.

    kyseessä olikin vallitseva yhteiskuntarakenne..

    Äänestä

  • nikkivaras kirjoitti:

    kyseessä olikin vallitseva yhteiskuntarakenne..

    kaikkehan voi soveltaa.

    Äänestä

mieshän on rikollinen?

Äänestä
  • tekee aina mielestäsi epäuskottavan, sheeple? Ovathan kaikki omaa maataan jenkkejä/länttä/isompaa vastaan puolustaneet ihmisetkin leimattu aina "terroristeiksi".

    Äänestä

  • sp86 kirjoitti:

    tekee aina mielestäsi epäuskottavan, sheeple? Ovathan kaikki omaa maataan jenkkejä/länttä/isompaa vastaan puolustaneet ihmisetkin leimattu aina "terroristeiksi".

    itsestäsi täydellisen pellen sheeple-nimityksinesi?

    Äänestä

  • voittaa sodan on aina oikeassa..

    Oliko neuvostoliitto oikeassa sotiessaan Suomea vastaan?

    Äänestä

  • että teet kirjoitti:

    itsestäsi täydellisen pellen sheeple-nimityksinesi?

    kirjoitus on juuri sinulle, joka pelkäät leimautuvasi..

    Äänestä

  • lueppas kirjoitti:

    kirjoitus on juuri sinulle, joka pelkäät leimautuvasi..

    sheeple

    Äänestä

  • vittu saatanan kirjoitti:

    sheeple

    on ongelma senkin sheeple.. :)

    Äänestä

"Nerouskin" tuntuu nykymaailmassa olevan käsite, jota käytetään aika keppoisin perustein...Sinua sinänsä arvostelematta sanoisin, että kannattaa olla hyvin varovainen, kun tuota(kin) termiä käyttää. En (kylläkään) itse ole perehtynyt kirjepommi-Kaczynskin ajatuksiin, joten en ole pätevä arvioimaan hänen nerokkuuttaan. Voisin hyvin sitä asiaa epäilläkin.

Noi sun lainaukses (ihan koko tekstiä en nyt jaksa lukea, vaikka siinä sangen mielenkiintoista näkökulmaa onkin..) osoittaa musta selkeästi, että Kaczynskin näkökulmat (todellakin!) olivat psykoottisesti virittyneitä, vaikka hän aivan oikein: "Tiesikin paljon yhteiskunnasta" (kuten viittasit). Hyvä kiteytymä edellä mainitsemastani vaikkapa tässä (lainaan Kaczynski-otteistasi):

"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."

Hyvin pettyneen ja negatiivisesti maailmaan asennoituvan miehen tekstiä. Sellaisen miehen tekstiä, joka ei varmaankaan kovin vahvasti ajatuksiltaan ole sidoksisssa realistiseen, eikä _erityisesti_ inhimilliseen maailman ymmärtämiseen tapaan.

En sinänsä sano, etteikö joukkotuhoon syyllistyneenkin ihmisen teksteissä voisi koskaan olla _mitään_ älyllistä ulottuvuutta, tai etteikö niissä _itsessään_ voisi _analyyttiselta kannalta_ paikoin olla mieltäkin, mutta (näin oman mielipiteeni ilmaistakseni) hlö. koht. ja omalla kohdallani en ny juuri Kaczynskin ajatuksiin perehtymistä kokisi niin erityisesti relevantiksi.

-e.W

Äänestä
  • "Hyvin pettyneen ja negatiivisesti maailmaan asennoituvan miehen tekstiä. Sellaisen miehen tekstiä, joka ei varmaankaan kovin vahvasti ajatuksiltaan ole sidoksisssa realistiseen, eikä _erityisesti_ inhimilliseen maailman ymmärtämiseen tapaan."

    Jos rakennetaan isoa taloa, johon muuttaa koko ajan enemmän ihmisiä (koska sitä rakennetaan koko ajan korkeammaksi), mutta jossa on pahanlaatuinen suunnitteluvirhe, niin eikö olisi parempi, että talo sortuisi / virhe huomattaisiin ajoissa ja ihmiset evakuoitaisiin ajoissa, kun että niin myöhään, että siitä on monelle ihmiselle haittaa? Tuo puhdasta logiikkaa, eikä "negatiivista" sellaista, koska logiikassa ei ole positiivista eikä negatiivista.

    "omalla kohdallani en ny juuri Kaczynskin ajatuksiin perehtymistä kokisi niin erityisesti relevantiksi."

    Ennen vanhaan ihmisen piti selviytyäkseen metsästää ruokaa, eikä hän stressannut mistään (ainakaan paljon). Ihminen tarvitsee haasteita, jotta mielenkiinto elämään säilyisi. Nykyihmiselle lähes kaikki ennen kovalla työllä ansaitut perustarpeet saadaan nykyään helposti ilman haastetta, joten ihminen joutuu turvautumaan keinotekoisesti luotuihin haasteisiin, esim. harrastukset. Jos siis luulet, että elät hyvää elämää, niin itse asiassa elät vain hyvää keinotekoista elämää, jota nykyaika pääasiassa on.

    Äänestä

  • sp86 kirjoitti:

    "Hyvin pettyneen ja negatiivisesti maailmaan asennoituvan miehen tekstiä. Sellaisen miehen tekstiä, joka ei varmaankaan kovin vahvasti ajatuksiltaan ole sidoksisssa realistiseen, eikä _erityisesti_ inhimilliseen maailman ymmärtämiseen tapaan."

    Jos rakennetaan isoa taloa, johon muuttaa koko ajan enemmän ihmisiä (koska sitä rakennetaan koko ajan korkeammaksi), mutta jossa on pahanlaatuinen suunnitteluvirhe, niin eikö olisi parempi, että talo sortuisi / virhe huomattaisiin ajoissa ja ihmiset evakuoitaisiin ajoissa, kun että niin myöhään, että siitä on monelle ihmiselle haittaa? Tuo puhdasta logiikkaa, eikä "negatiivista" sellaista, koska logiikassa ei ole positiivista eikä negatiivista.

    "omalla kohdallani en ny juuri Kaczynskin ajatuksiin perehtymistä kokisi niin erityisesti relevantiksi."

    Ennen vanhaan ihmisen piti selviytyäkseen metsästää ruokaa, eikä hän stressannut mistään (ainakaan paljon). Ihminen tarvitsee haasteita, jotta mielenkiinto elämään säilyisi. Nykyihmiselle lähes kaikki ennen kovalla työllä ansaitut perustarpeet saadaan nykyään helposti ilman haastetta, joten ihminen joutuu turvautumaan keinotekoisesti luotuihin haasteisiin, esim. harrastukset. Jos siis luulet, että elät hyvää elämää, niin itse asiassa elät vain hyvää keinotekoista elämää, jota nykyaika pääasiassa on.

    "Jos siis luulet, että elät hyvää elämää, niin itse asiassa elät vain hyvää keinotekoista elämää, jota nykyaika pääasiassa on. "

    No mutta. Ethän sinä vain suinkaan epäile lukukykyäni?

    Toi pommin väsääjähän teilaa kirjoituksessaan täydellisesti mm. teollisen vallankumouksen positiiviset puolet. Tieteeseen orientoituneelta ihmiseltä ( en tiedä, että miten paljon tunnet) on sellainen kohtuullisen kipeäluontoista asennoitumista.

    Ei mulle suurta vaivaa lainauksiesi loppuun asti lukemisessa olisi ollut, mutta jostakin syystä en kokenut siihen suurta mieltymystä. Kymymys ton "neroksikin" ylistämäsi miehen kohdalla on mielestäsi lähinnä suuruudenhulluutta osoittavasta ja arki-inhimillisestä realistisesta maailman ymmärryksen tavasta irtautuneesta miehestä (teksteistään pääteltävissä mielestäni oikein hyvin).

    En välttämättä kovin äkkiä niitä neron suoltamaksi ajattelisi, suurelti perehtymättäkään.

    En kiistä, etteivätkö nuokin tekstit edustaisi julkisuutta saaneen ja opiskelleen ihmisen näkökulmaa, enkä halua sitä ainakaan itsessään väittää, etteikö moninaisiin maailman kiinnostaviin asioihin saa perehtyä. En kohdistanut kritiikkiäni suhun henkilökohtaisesti. Sanon ja toistan ja tarkennan vain vielä uudelleenkin, että jonkun ihmisen älyllisyyttä voi ja saa myös myös epäillä ja että se on älyllisesti orientoitunelle ja älykkyyttä omaavalle ihmiselle myös velvollisuus.    

    -e.W      
       

    Äänestä

Kommentoi aloitusta


sp86 kirjoitti:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Kaczynski

oli nero, vaikka lähettelikin kirjepommeja. Hän tiesi paljon yhteiskunnasta, paljon enemmän kuin tavallinen sheeple.

Tässä kuitenkin Tedin manifesti:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future

Laitan tähän muutamia otteita tekstistä.

Introduction

1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering—even in "advanced" countries.

3. 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.

5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.

The psychology of modern leftism

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 a 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.)

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

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.)

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.

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.

Oversocialization

24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.

25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people.

26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of himself. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.

Aion lukea tämän kokonaaan.

Anonyymi
5000

Ilmoita asiaton sisältö

  • Sisältää materiaalia, joka on loukkaavaa, herjaavaa, rasistista, uhkailevaa tai ahdistelevaa.

  • Materiaali sisältää nimiä, yhteystietoja tai muita henkilökohtaisia tietoja. Julkisuuden henkilöistä, julkisissa viroissa toimivista ihmisistä sekä yritysten vastuuhenkilöistä saa keskustella työhön liittyen. Myös yksityiselämään liittyvistä asioista voi keskustella siltä osin, kuin niistä on julkisesti kerrottu.

  • Sisältää lapsille haitallista tai heiltä kiellettyä materiaalia. Seksuaalinen sisältö on sallittua aiheeseen tarkoitetuilla palstoilla, joiden ikäraja on 18 vuotta.

  • Lainvastaista sisältöä voi olla mm. yksityiselämää loukkaavan tiedon levitys, kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan, laiton uhkaaminen, alaikäisiin liittyvä seksuaalinen sisältö/grooming, petokset, identiteettivarkaudet, kunnianloukkaukset ja tekijänoikeusrikkomukset.

  • Sisältö ei liity palstan tai keskusteluketjun aiheeseen.

  • Viesti ei ole suomea tai ruotsia (pl. International Forums), se sisältää mainontaa, se sisältää tekijänoikeuksin suojattua materiaalia, se on massapostitus tai jokin muu syy.

Jaa keskustelu