Looks Like, Walks Like, Quacks Like

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.

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.

The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist.

-Excerpts from Industrial Society and Its Future by Theodore Kaczynski

Kaczynski’s view of the right:

The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

Theodore Kaczynski delivered sixteen bombs, injured twenty-three people and killed three over a period of seventeen years, ostensibly to hasten revolution.   He skipped grades 6 and 11 and was estimated to have an IQ of 167.   Efforts to stop him resulted in the most expensive investigation in FBI history.

Ironically, his determination to have a major American news outlet print his manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future, did him in.   His brother recognized the published rhetoric and alerted authorities.   Today, Theodore Kaczynski spends his days in Florence Colorado at the Supermax prison, without the possibility of parole.

A good study of Kaczynski’s manifesto reveals him fond for the left even though his intellect prevents him from embracing those hypocritical positions whole hog.   He rails against modern technology, equally against overbearing government and overbearing corporate enterprises, and complains that society’s organization and its embrace of modern technology has resulted in mankind losing freedom.

Kaczynski has a perverted view of what freedom is, but his rhetoric sounds no more crazy and no more pessimistic than that speech emanating from the leading Democratic presidential candidate,

We can’t eat all we want.

We can’t drive our SUV’s.

We can’t set our thermostats to seventy-two degrees.

We can’t use up twenty-five percent of the world’s energy when we only make up three percent of its population.

We can’t?

Why the hell not?   And who says we’re using up twenty-five percent of the worlds energy?   How does our capital flowing throughout the world to purchase energy help world economies?   Obama would have you believe our robust business activity is hurting the world.   If it was so bad the world would stop doing business with us.

His assertion is American consumption exists to the detriment of other countries.   If that’s the case, how did we evolve pass the Stone Age?   As soon as one group excelled another group would be subjugated, progress would be impossible.   The whole we can’t concept is moronic.

Barack Obama has declared that we cannot have an opulent and luxurious lifestyle, not like our parents had.   In his view greedy Americans must sacrifice, as if to suggest he is going to turn off his thermostat at his large home in a most prestigious Chicago locale.

Obama enthusiastically embraces the America can’t theme and reveals his view that American excellence is somehow an evil force that subjugates our world.   He does not see America’s most exceptional attribute for what it is, a beacon for optimism, for possibility, for freedom, and for mankind’s inalienable right to pursue happiness, even if that means setting the thermostat to seventy-two degrees.

Kaczynski’s Industrial Society and Its Future is far more interesting and entertaining than Obama’s ad lib laments we endure in his quest for the White House.   Aside from the fact that Kaczynski actually makes a bit of sense in many of his passages, the two communicators share an eerily similar whacked out view of America.   Our capitalistic technological society is intrinsically evil and it must be destroyed.

Neither Kaczynski nor Obama comprehend the simple beauty of a free system where one individual can venture to provide goods or services he interprets a market to desire, and where one client can purchase those goods or services at a price determined only by the two individuals, without government interference.

In Kaczynski’s mind this idea that individuals can obtain and wield any measure of personal power is inconceivable, in Obama’s, such thoughts are profane and suggest any measure of individual power would subjugate bureaucratic control, the only just repository for any authority to influence humanity’s existence.

Neither Kaczynski nor Obama understand freedom or liberty.

Barack Obama is not a duck, he’s the Unabomber…without the IQ.

 

Copyright 2008 Jim Pontillo

16 thoughts on “Looks Like, Walks Like, Quacks Like

  1. This is by and far the worst and most bizarre propaganda I have ever seen from modern politics.

    OBAMA LOVE UNABOMBER!!

  2. Barack the Quack. Snake oil for the masses.
    Wonder how popular he would be if he wrecked the American economy. Meteoric rise becomes a meteoric fall.
    Barack has the IQ. His coveted academic and political life/career has sheltered him from a real world perspective though. Kinda like computers modeling global warming. Never mistake education for intelligence.
    If our economy falters, you can see the impact it has on other countries. Our robust economic activities have more than helped the world. If we quit buying their junk or whatever where will they be? Show me an Arab who is pissed off because we bought his oil. If things go down hill here, China and India will go back to living in huts and using stones for tools. Now isnt that an evil outcome where government meddling causes people in other countries to suffer. Liberals are often bewildered by how markets function. Maybe we should pass a constitutional amendment requiring that Congress has to have a degree in economics. Of course if they are taught by the wrong people, they still wont know a thing.

    The power of the individual is that we can adjust to make things better over the course of time. We can take of pollution or save endangered species. We can adjust and learn. We Americans do not like being told what to do or how to do it. We believe the individual can persevere without some government bobblehead acting like a guardian angel.

  3. “Kaczynski has a perverted view of what freedom is, but his rhetoric sounds no more crazy and no more pessimistic than that speech emanating from the leading Democratic presidential candidate,”

    There is no actual connection here. You bring up Kaczynski as though he’s somehow relevant, and then you connect him to Obama by saying “Obama’s a pessimist! Just like the Unabomber!”

    http://www.nef1.org/ea/eastats.html
    http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/100
    Here are some numbers and statistics about America’s fuel consumption.

    It’s evident that you don’t understand the ludicrous luxury and waste of Western lifestyles [particularly of the Baby Boomer generation], and how that can’t be sustained even by our generation. The Baby Boomers going on pension will bankrupt the country, and their children. Can we eat all we want? Evidently not, there are food shortages and price crises even in the West now. Can we still drive our SUVs? Evidently not, they cost a fortune to drive. Can we set our thermostats to seventy-two? At this rate we won’t even need thermostats.

    You also clearly don’t understand the effects of neoliberal policies on small, developing nations – the short version is that free trade doesn’t work so well for poor countries. Their local industry is unable to compete with Western/American mass-production, and they’re not allowed to use protective tariffs because of the WTO etc. Their local economies crumble, and when they go to other countries or the World Bank to get a loan, to bail them out of this mess and try to kick-start development, the World Bank dictates a development plan to them. These countries become financially indebted to the wealthy powerhouses, and have their production power controlled by foreigners. Much of the world CANNOT stop trading with the world powers, because they have become dependent on them.

    Obama is not saying that America is EVIL but that the generation that came before us lived an irresponsible, self-indulgent lifestyle.

  4. Basically every comparison you make between Obama and the Unabomber is baseless and insane.

  5. Crumb,

    Obama’s rhetoric sounds just like the Unabomber. Read the italics, and then read Obama’s words. These are their words not mine.

    Secondly, your ignorance over free trade is breathtaking.

    The African nations which have endeavored to embrace free trade do well. The one’s that haven’t, the ones that have despots preaching socialism like Stalin and Castro, don’t do so well. These nation’s leaders destroy their people, and it’s not because of evil capitalism.

    You are lazy and just say stuff without any research.

    I’d call you a moron, but that would be insulting to morons.

  6. If anything, the Unabomber’s rhetoric is ANTI-Obama.
    “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.”
    Do you mean to tell me that you DON’T think Obama is anti-war, pro-diplomacy, anti-white or socialist after all? If anything, Kaczinsky is a crazy small-government conservative, who wants to conserve the old, pre-modern values. He is not Barack Obama; he would be a critic of Obama.

    Please explain to me why I am wrong about undeveloped nations being unable to compete with America’s industrial might.

    I never called capitalism evil. I said that the free trade policies and World Bank requirements prevent fair competition and stifle real capitalism.

    I think you’d be surprised by who opposed free trade and why:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade#American_opposition_to_free_trade

    “Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man. [It is said] that protection is immoral…. Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefitting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, ‘Buy where you can buy the cheapest’…. Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: ‘Buy where you can pay the easiest.’ And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards.” -President McKinley

  7. “If it was so bad the world would stop doing business with us.”

    Not really. If the Third World doesn’t trade with America it will lose valuable development aid from the IMF and World Bank, such is the power of these US-dominated neo-liberal institutions.

  8. “if it was so bad they would stop doing business with us” is only true if the developing world has the same amount of economic freedom as America [they don’t].

  9. Obama is not saying that America is EVIL but that the generation that came before us lived an irresponsible, self-indulgent lifestyle.

    Crumb, show me a generation since that one that is responsible and sacrificing. I work with people that are in their teens and twenties and that just described the entire lot in half a sentence. Our consumer minds believe in consumption consumption consumption. Obama could not even say that his generation is not that way.

    To the rest of you, I apologize for saying that Obama had an IQ. After his comments about Auschwitz, I stand corrected.

  10. Clearly he is warning the current generations to avoid being so indulgent. That’s kind of the point of his rhetoric.

  11. Wait, you’re basing your judgment of Obama on a slip of the tongue?

  12. But the current generations are overly indulgent.

    Did you hear what Obama told the students at Wesleyan on Sunday? Obama suddenly looks overly indulgent or maybe it was just a slip of the tongue.

  13. “Schlussel, the Detroit attorney and blogger, disagrees. She compares the keffiyeh to the Ku Klux Klan’s white hoods. “People need to realize it’s not just clothing,” she said. “It’s come to symbolize the garb of terrorism.”
    =============================
    If it had been a keffiyeh, I would agree. But it wasn’t, and it wasn’t even close. In these cases, intention has to be part of the equation, or “you” become a media terrorist.
    I believe that you would want to get rid of any scarf in black and white worn around the neck as the fashion is. Even if it were Disney characters playing, I believe you’d want to take the person wearing that to task.

    That’s just nuts.

  14. Which is nuts? Accusing someone of wearing a scarf? Or defending wearing a scarf?

Comments are closed.