BaalChatzaf

Who wrote this?

Recommended Posts

Who wrote this:

"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."

 

Answer:  Ted Kazcyski, the Unabomber in his Manifesto published in the New York Times and Washington Postl.

Are you surprised?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/una

Quote

 


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 every one'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 antagohistic 
to the concept of competition because, deep inside, 
he feels like a loser.

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.

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.
		

 

See also:  The Unabomber Manifesto (CONDENSED)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Are you surprised?

Bob,

No.

Madmen often speak the truth in the midst of their madness and delusions.

More often than not, when they are right (at least in the writings of the madmen I have studied, including L Ron Hubbard), like in the case of Kazcyski here, they attain profound insights about specific things they look at and identify.

Sometimes one part of the brain is laser-targeted genius level while other parts are cockeyed. You deal with science. How many mathematicians and inventors does my comment apply to? 

From the things I have read by Kazcyski, and about him, he falls into the same general category. Including the math part, for that matter. But instead of talking to imaginary friends, washing his hands 180 times a day, or switching into a wolf when the mood stuck him, he liked to play with bombs.

:) 

Actually, the mind control stuff done on him by the US government and Harvard of all places were filthy crimes concocted by elitist assholes who used the Cold War as an excuse to treat humans like lab rats.

Kazcyski has agency and free will, so there is no excuse for his letter bombs. But emotionally he is damaged goods--and he was damaged by the very people who were supposed to educate and protect him.

Kazcyski in my view is not evil. He's a damaged man and genius who did a number of specific evil things. The evil fucks for real--that is, people who are evil and not just do sporadic evil things, people who promote evil on purpose as the way they want the world to be--are the ones who damaged him.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

No.

Madmen often speak the truth in the midst of their madness and delusions.

More often than not, when they are right (at least in the writings of the madmen I have studied, including L Ron Hubbard), like in the case of Kazcyski here, they attain profound insights about specific things they look at and identify.

Sometimes one part of the brain is laser-targeted genius level while other parts are cockeyed. You deal with science. How many mathematicians and inventors does my comment apply to? 

From the things I have read by Kazcyski, and about him, he falls into the same general category. Including the math part, for that matter. But instead of talking to imaginary friends, washing his hands 180 times a day, or switching into a wolf when the mood stuck him, he liked to play with bombs.

:) 

Actually, the mind control stuff done on him by the US government and Harvard of all places were filthy crimes concocted by elitist assholes who used the Cold War as an excuse to treat humans like lab rats.

Kazcyski has agency and free will, so there is no excuse for his letter bombs. But emotionally he is damaged goods--and he was damaged by the very people who were supposed to educate and protect him.

Kazcyski in my view is not evil. He's a damaged man and genius who did a number of specific evil things. The evil fucks for real--that is, people who are evil and not just do sporadic evil things, people who promote evil on purpose as the way they want the world to be--are the ones who damaged him.

Michael

I have never looked into it. I recall he got NYT to print the thing, and that it was long. I never read much if any of it.

It sounds like maybe some people got mail bombs from their old lab rat. Completely different story than what we had crammed down our throats,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Completely different story than what we had crammed down our throats,

Jon,

I only know a little myself. I recall seeing some interviews and reading about it at the time.

I brushed up on a few things on Wikipedia: Ted Kaczynski.

According to the article, his purpose in sending the bombs was revenge for encroaching on the wildlife around him.

For the mind control shit, look at this part of the article. See if it doesn't sound like some assholes. (btw - If you have never read up on MKULTRA, man are you in for a treat.)

Quote

As a sophomore [at Harvard], Kaczynski participated in a study described by author Alston Chase as a "purposely brutalizing psychological experiment" led by Harvard psychologist Henry Murray. Subjects were told they would be debating personal philosophy with a fellow student, and were asked to write essays detailing their personal beliefs and aspirations. The essays were turned over to an anonymous attorney, who in a later session would confront and belittle the subject – making "vehement, sweeping, and personally abusive" attacks – using the content of the essays as ammunition, while electrodes monitored the subject's physiological reactions. These encounters were filmed, and subjects' expressions of anger and rage were later played back to them repeatedly. The experiment lasted three years, with someone verbally abusing and humiliating Kaczynski each week. Kaczynski spent 200 hours as part of the study.

Kaczynski's lawyers later attributed his hostility towards mind control techniques to his participation in Murray's study.[24] Some sources have suggested that Murray's experiments were part of Project MKUltra, the Central Intelligence Agency's research into mind control. Chase and others have also suggested that this experience may have motivated Kaczynski's criminal activities, while philosopher Jonathan D. Moreno said that, though "Kaczynski's anti-technological fixation and his critique itself had some roots in the Harvard curriculum," his later bombing campaign can "by no means be laid at Harvard's door".

There seems to be a lot of good stuff on YouTube about him.

Maybe I'll get some time, look at it and post the more interesting things here.

To start, here is a documentary made for The Discovery Channel in 1999 or thereabouts. It is Episode 9 of a series called "The FBI Files." I haven't seen it as of this posting, but I probably will tomorrow. At first blush from looking around at the comments on the Internet about this series, it seems to be good. 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read up on some MKULTRA. I never thought of that for Kaczynski.

Jason Bourne is more truth than people realize. Some victims remember what they were not supposed to remember and they don't let it go, so to say.

And then they "have to be" eliminated or destroyed with elaborate narratives about what they were and why they acted as they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

I've read up on some MKULTRA.

Jon,

I've got the CIA Interrogation (brainwashing and torture :) ) manual from that cache of documents. The CIA had been denying this program ever existed and Richard Helms had the documents (along with a shit load of other documents) destroyed around the time of Watergate. But he missed some. Due to a bureaucratic screw-up, a bunch of MKULTRA documents were filed in the wrong building and discovered later. Now, due to FOIA, they are all over the Internet and the people who like to mock conspiracy theorists avoid this topic altogether. This one doesn't fit their mockery. :) I've even discussed things with people who deny it, even though the government has fully owned up to everything for decades.

Here's the Wikipedia link for the reader: Project MKUltra.

And that's only from what was in the documents that were accidentally stored in the wrong place. Imagine what was in the full set of documents that were destroyed...

Netflix did a miniseries called Wormwood about one guy who jumped out of a window to his death back in the 1950's during the project, but they fucked it up. Oh... the information seems to be OK, but I don't think they could have made it any more boring and artsy-fartsy than they did. I think they reached the limit. :) (It's a shame, too.) I was only able to watch two episodes before going out to find some razor blades to chew on out of frustration. :)  I intend to finish one day, but not today, as I keep telling myself. :) 

btw - I changed my post above yours to include a documentary on the Unabomber.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To those who start to look at MKULTRA and don’t want to keep going, I don’t blame you. It is truly disturbing, saddening stuff. It will drop you, so do not proceed if you already feel down, later instead.

Basically, the human brain is totally hackable. Through very disturbing means, the victim’s mind is split into multiple personalities, which in turn are methodically programmed. The victim’s original personality in most every case is permanently erased, they don’t come back. Victims can be programmed for highly unusual accuities, that is one positive. Photographic memories. No fear, no capacity to feel pain, other exotic abilities. The victim is reduced to literal mind slave existence. They typically have a handler who is an everyday intimate in life and knows the programs and the system management. The victim is undetectable, even to fairly sophisticated diagnostic measures. Adults need a good handler but children can be programmed much more deeply and reliably - they grow to become handlers.

The official story for some time to come will be that all this nasty stuff arose under Hitler, it was all invented then. We had no choice but to see what it was all about - what if others beat us to it and beat us with it!? Emerging Cold War and all that.

That’s nonsense. This nasty shit is a culture, millennia old. It is satanism, and it’s been with us since long before recorded history. It is not gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

No.

Madmen often speak the truth in the midst of their madness and delusions.

More often than not, when they are right (at least in the writings of the madmen I have studied, including L Ron Hubbard), like in the case of Kazcyski here, they attain profound insights about specific things they look at and identify.

Sometimes one part of the brain is laser-targeted genius level while other parts are cockeyed. You deal with science. How many mathematicians and inventors does my comment apply to? 

From the things I have read by Kazcyski, and about him, he falls into the same general category. Including the math part, for that matter. But instead of talking to imaginary friends, washing his hands 180 times a day, or switching into a wolf when the mood stuck him, he liked to play with bombs.

:) 

Actually, the mind control stuff done on him by the US government and Harvard of all places were filthy crimes concocted by elitist assholes who used the Cold War as an excuse to treat humans like lab rats.

Kazcyski has agency and free will, so there is no excuse for his letter bombs. But emotionally he is damaged goods--and he was damaged by the very people who were supposed to educate and protect him.

Kazcyski in my view is not evil. He's a damaged man and genius who did a number of specific evil things. The evil fucks for real--that is, people who are evil and not just do sporadic evil things, people who promote evil on purpose as the way they want the world to be--are the ones who damaged him.

Michael

Thank you for your thoughtful essay.  You have grasped Kacynski's situation correctly.   We are all the product of the experiences we have and to some extent the blows which have been inflicted upon us.  Even so,  we broken clocks tell the right time  now and again. 

 

L.L.A.P \\//

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q!!mG7VJxZNCI6 Jan 2019 - 10:24:44 PM
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7920010/cia-mkultra-mind-control-drugs-hypnosis-electric-documents/📁
Program dev ongoing under offshore [not domestic] 'tangent' agency?
Covert funding?
Animals > Humans
Humans 1988
71% avg success rate.
Targeted (mental) 'criteria' designated as [ , ].
Mental institutions & therapists > 'program-specialists'…..
Cocktail regimen 4x daily brain intercept [administered by ]
Hint:

https://ncats.nih.gov/pubs/features/brain-signals-action📁
WIA military personnel targets of the program?
PTSD+
Clandestine Black OPs > zero affiliation (non_stick)
Something out of a movie?
Fiction?
The hole is deep.
Q
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2018 at 11:52 PM, Jon Letendre said:

To those who start to look at MKULTRA and don’t want to keep going, I don’t blame you. It is truly disturbing, saddening stuff. It will drop you, so do not proceed if you already feel down, later instead.

Basically, the human brain is totally hackable. Through very disturbing means, the victim’s mind is split into multiple personalities, which in turn are methodically programmed. The victim’s original personality in most every case is permanently erased, they don’t come back. Victims can be programmed for highly unusual accuities, that is one positive. Photographic memories. No fear, no capacity to feel pain, other exotic abilities. The victim is reduced to literal mind slave existence. They typically have a handler who is an everyday intimate in life and knows the programs and the system management. The victim is undetectable, even to fairly sophisticated diagnostic measures. Adults need a good handler but children can be programmed much more deeply and reliably - they grow up to be handlers.  

Aw, teachers.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Aw, teachers.

--Brant

The ancient Egyptians were adept at a form of MKUltra. It was doubtless discovered many millennia ago. Extreme torture shatters the human mind and yields a highly suggestible blank slate. A slave for life can be programmed. The Egyptians did this with children. Modern techniques allow the development of CEOs, Presidents, actresses, everything a person can be, assassins, spies, sleeper cells, school shooting stooges, etc.

The Nazi researchers who were going deep into these techniques were brought to the US after WWII. The CIA compartmentalized the research at dozens of US and Canadian universities. The Monarch program goes further into developing exotic abilities of multiple personalities. These mind control techniques have leaked and can be seen in use today, in Hollywood, for example. I believe we will eventually learn, after we learn of his execution, that Obama was a victim.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Forty years after revelations that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency funded brainwashing experiments on unsuspecting Canadians, the Trudeau government is continuing a pattern of silencing the victims, a lawyer for one of the families says.

“A recent Department of Justice gag order in an out-of-court settlement was designed to avoid responsibility and avert compensation to more victims and their families, said Alan Stein, who has represented numerous survivors who were once patients at the Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal.

“Revelations of mental torture on hundreds of Canadian patients first surfaced in the late 1970s and were later the subject of four Fifth Estate documentaries exposing the role of the CIA and the federal government in funding brainwashing experiments during the Cold War.

Back in the 1990s, the federal government rejected his claim, citing lack of proof that Jean Steel had been damaged enough to reach a "childlike state" — a condition of a federal government payment plan.

”In the early 1990s, the federal government provided compensation to 77 victims but turned down more than 250 because they weren't tortured enough, applied too late or ... “

 

 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadian-government-gag-order-mk-ultra-1.4448933

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2018 at 8:17 PM, Brant Gaede said:

He shit on his own words with his deeds.

Let us not speak his name again forever.

--Brant

I can agree to that. Well said. I could write a list of bastards who's names should never be spoken but I would be contradicting that edict by writing their names.

The Politico back in 2010 or so wrote: Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen think they know who is going to be leading that reform. The real power on the right, they argue, rests with the "Rubio-Rand Party.  Forget John Boehner. Ignore Karl Rove. The real action in the GOP is coming from the newest wing of the party, the one born in the spring of 2009—the offspring of Tea Party activists that almost single-handedly propelled Republicans to control of the House. This new movement brought Marco Rubio and Rand Paul to Washington—and made them the two most potent forces in GOP politics today. end quote

They knew what they were talking about to an extent.  Are government entities or Facebook or Politico supplying subliminal messages over the internet to make its citizens or readers compliant? Obviously Politico’s message worked. Cue the Mad Man laugh track. Just joking. But it was part of a bigger surge that bypassed everyone in “the establishment” including Rubio, Rand, and that Senator from Texas, what’s his name. The Tea Party opened the door for a reformer ‘they” believed would do as he promised and drain the swamp. Enter the redeemer, the reformer, and the hero, President Trump. Now Rubio and Rand are barely noticeable by the right and WE, the few and the proud, on Objectivist Living. To gather the real news about President Trump we must ignore the pervasive left leaning media, its subliminal and overt propaganda, and not be swayed in our thinking.

The other day I looked to see how many people were following and reading OL at that moment and ALL of them were NOT logged in. 16 people were looking at OL. Interesting.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I typed in mental illness and got this old gem. Peter

Barbara Branden wrote:  In answer to my question, Jeff R wrote: <Basically what Szasz says about depression is what he says about all "mental illness" -- that there is, strictly speaking, no such thing; that what we are really talking about here is problems in living and the different ways different people deal with them. Calling "depression" a "mental illness" or a "medical condition" is to “medicalize" unjustifiably an emotional reaction to the problems in one's life and one's estimate of one's ability to deal with them. In Heresies (1976), he defines "depression" as "self-accusation and self-pity." >>

If Szasz is correct, and since you agree with him, how would you explain the fact that antidepressant medication has saved the lives of many people who were so depressed that they were considering suicide? And that in less extreme cases, the medication alone -- without therapy and without intensive self-analysis -- has lifted the depression and restored people to their normal state. One could say that such people recovered because they believed they would recover, but there is no real evidence of this. Depressed people who thought that nothing could alleviate their misery, found that the medication, to their surprise, did just that.

You quote Szasz, as follows: <<Consider the millionaire who finds himself financially ruined because of business reverses.  How shall we explain his "depression" (if we so want to label his feeling of dejection)?  By regarding it as the result of the events mentioned, and perhaps of others in his childhood?  Or as the expression of his view of himself and of his powers in the world, present and future?  To choose the former is to redefine ethical conduct as psychiatric malady.>>

But very often prolonged depression occurs in the absence of any unusual negative events in one's life, and in the absence of any discernible cause. Life was pretty much going along as usual -- until depression hit. There may very well have been a number of difficulties in one's life before the depression hit, but not ones the equivalent of which had not occurred before without causing significant depression.

A great many people commonly experience self-pity, even wallow in it – but that does not necessarily result in severe depression. And people who do rarely experience significant self-pity have experienced serious depression.

I am not suggesting that prolonged and deep depression is a psychological malady. Quite the opposite. I wonder -- because the above issues I raised seem to point to it -- if it is not almost totally the result of an aberrant brain chemistry. Depression, not necessarily severe, almost always is a problem that begins in youth and continues on and off throughout ones life if one does not take antidepressant medication.

I have read, although I don't know if it's true -- and this might contradict the idea that ONLY brain chemistry is involved -- that depression is quite common among writers. For instance, William Styron, who was almost physically, emotionally, and intellectually paralyzed by it. And many other great writers, throughout the centuries, have also experienced severe and prolonged depression. For instance, Ayn Rand. Her  disappointment in the reception to ATLAS SHRUGGED and her break with and disappointment with Nathaniel (and with me, to a lesser degree) could be taken as the causes; but she had experienced much worse in her life -- such as the constant fear of imminent arrest and death in Russia, years of semi-starvation, and the loss of Leo, the young man who was her first and passionate love – without sinking into depression. She was unhappy over these events, terribly unhappy, but that is not the same thing as depression.

Another possibility is that the chemistry of the brain -- or, at least, of some brains -- can handle a great deal of pain and unhappiness, but then it breaks down at some point when even a more minor unhappiness, that one would otherwise take in one's stride, has a cumulative effect that the physical brain cannot handle.

As is obvious, I am thinking on paper as I write. But Jeff -- and George – I am very interested in your reactions. Barbara

From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Question for BB, NB or others... Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 11:34:45 EST. Tom Devine asked: In what ways did Ayn Rand's fiction reflect her own suffering?  Are Roark and Galt's painful isolation from their loved ones a reflection of Rand's own melancholy?  Is there particular significance to be found in the fact that her work glorified happiness to such an extreme while she experienced so little happiness in her own life? Is there special meaning to her romanticizing of smoking in her fiction in regards to her own bad habit?>>

These are very interesting questions, to which I'm happy to respond.

1. <<In what ways did Ayn Rand's fiction reflect her own suffering?>>

I think that, especially in ATLAS SHRUGGED, it did reflect her own growing bitterness and near despair with the state of the culture. Fiction is autobiography, whether the writer intends it or not. And as she grew more bitter, so did her work. Yet, in all of her fiction, including ATLAS, one sees her unconquerable worship of joy that I believe was more basic to her than any suffering or bitterness. The external world created the suffering; Ayn Rand created the love of joy.

2. <<Are Roark and Galt's painful isolation from their loved ones a reflection of Rand's own melancholy?>>

I don't think so. They are, instead, a reflection of her love of drama and conflict in fiction. If there is also an autobiographical element, I believe it was a reflection of her own isolation in different ways from the men she loved in her lifetime.

3.  <<Is there particular significance to be found in the fact that her work glorified happiness to such an extreme while she experienced so little happiness in her own life? >>

No, I don't believe the two are retial part of her view of life, both philosophically and personally. Let me add that I would not say she experienced <<so little happiness in her own life.>> But her happiness came mostly from her work, much less so from her personal relationships. Although her early years with Frank O'Connor and her early months with Nathaniel Branden brought her much joy. As did her friendship with Nathaniel and with me, and later with the collective.

4. <<Is there special meaning to her romanticizing of smoking in her fiction in regards to her own bad habit?>>

Not directly. She truly saw smoking as <<fire tamed at man's fingertips>> which is probably why she began smoking when she did. And she did not see her habit as a bad one; in the years in which she glorified smoking, much less was known about it than is known today, and it was not unreasonable for her to say that there was no scientific proof that smoking was dangerous to one's health. Barbara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Peter said:

I can agree to that. 

I cannot. What about his butchers who bashed him until he became what he became? We never have to worry about speaking their names, do we? Because they remain anonymous. While you rail against their victim as though the story rightly ends with his imprisonment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2019 at 1:35 PM, Jon Letendre said:

I cannot. What about his butchers who bashed him until he became what he became? We never have to worry about speaking their names, do we? Because they remain anonymous. While you rail against their victim as though the story rightly ends with his imprisonment. 

I am not sure what you are talking about. The unibomber, in a Charles Manson-esque rage, sent letter bombs. That is worse than a roadside bomb, or a gangbanger shooting into a house containing innocent people. What if children had opened the packages? Hopefully this is the last time I will write his name. I am no fan of people who corrupt or even ignore kids as they grow up, but being "the bad stepmother" is not they same as murdering people.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...