“It is obvious that [leftists] are not cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality.”
― Theodore Kaczynski
I'm reading the book not his manifesto version. There are no mentions of bombs in his book so the fact that he's the unabomber is of no importance. He's facing the consequences of his actions (good!). Doesn't mean that the book isn't good.
> would conflate liberals and leftists?
The book is from the 90s. You have to factor that in to be sure that he's conflating anything really. Lets also remember that Kaczynski is a literal genius. Top 1% of intelligence. Based on this also I don't believe that he thinks it makes any difference OR it made perfect sense in the times when he wrote it.
It's irrelevant because in a two-party political system they both (leftists+liberals) side to the left. The psychology (traits) of leftism/liberals are similar. The psychology (traits) of conservatives are the same no matter what "sub-type" (in lack of a better word) of conservative they claim to be because they side to the right. Wouldn't you call a neo-conservatives a conservative?
Since Ted is from the US he lives in the forementioned two-party political system. Making the distinction between leftist and liberals makes more sense imo in the European political system (not two-party) and perhaps others.
Left/Right, the political leaning can be observed because of various clues and traits. It's well understood. In academia and elsewhere.
> reactionary conservatives
Absolutely! Kaczynski also goes hard into conservatives. You should read the book, he is also criticising his own political leaning. He isn't so political-focused in his book. It's more on the sociology/psychology side.
miguelazo|3 years ago
But the same thing can be said of reactionary conservatives. https://billmoyers.com/story/how-authoritarianism-short-circ...
p1peridine|3 years ago
> would conflate liberals and leftists?
The book is from the 90s. You have to factor that in to be sure that he's conflating anything really. Lets also remember that Kaczynski is a literal genius. Top 1% of intelligence. Based on this also I don't believe that he thinks it makes any difference OR it made perfect sense in the times when he wrote it.
It's irrelevant because in a two-party political system they both (leftists+liberals) side to the left. The psychology (traits) of leftism/liberals are similar. The psychology (traits) of conservatives are the same no matter what "sub-type" (in lack of a better word) of conservative they claim to be because they side to the right. Wouldn't you call a neo-conservatives a conservative?
Since Ted is from the US he lives in the forementioned two-party political system. Making the distinction between leftist and liberals makes more sense imo in the European political system (not two-party) and perhaps others.
Left/Right, the political leaning can be observed because of various clues and traits. It's well understood. In academia and elsewhere.
> reactionary conservatives
Absolutely! Kaczynski also goes hard into conservatives. You should read the book, he is also criticising his own political leaning. He isn't so political-focused in his book. It's more on the sociology/psychology side.