To all the people in the comments being like “Ted had some good points.” Judi Bari, Peter Kropotkin, and Murray Bookchin are all people who have written about environmentalism and the problems of technology, industrialization, and such and better than the reactionary psychopath did. Fascists love the unabomber and use him to normalize eco-fascism. Stop fucking saying he had good points cause there are better authors who have made those same points without all the fucking reactionary and eco-fascism tied to it.
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a duck. I don’t really care if the duck says its not a duck and that it is against ducks, its still a duck. When you go about blaming the lefties (of which he labelled fascists as leftists) and the gays, and envisioning a society that would functionally genocide a bunch of people I am gonna call you a fascist. Cause if we just got rid of technology and returned to primitive living, a lot of people would die. Namely disabled people and people with chronic illnesses. It is indirect eugenics. Its exactly why most anarchists nowadays do not associate with anarcho-primitivists, and call them eco-fascists as well.
The reason why people like Bookchin and Bari are better is because they critique industrialization while putting forward solutions that don’t kill a bunch of people.
And lets not pretend like fascism is this coherent or cohesive ideology. Its an ideology of opportunism. Mussolini and Hitler were vastly different, and even just comparing Mussolini’s writing to his actions there’s a lot of differences. For example Mussolini’s writings were anti-monarchist, yet the monarchy remained in fascist Italy because it gave him an opportunity.
Ted might not have been a fascist directly, but his ideology is not incompatible with fascism. And the consequences of his ideology is still genocide, even if indirectly.
For real. It waters down the meaning of the word “fascist,” and now when I talk about actual fascism (with a well-informed take because I only use that word when I’m applying it correctly), people don’t take me seriously because they think I’m just “labeling everyone you disagree with as a fascist.”
I’m not. I disagree with everyone I label as a fascist, yes. Because I disagree with fascism and I only label fascists fascists. But I’m perfectly capable of disagreeing with someone without labeling them a fascist, if they’re not a fascist. I do it all the time!
Stop fucking saying he had good points cause there are better authors who have made those same points
Doesn’t this inherently imply he does in fact have good points if they’re making the same points… you also make a good point that there’s better sources that don’t come with a ton of ideology baggage but what your saying here is yes he does have good points but read someone else saying his points instead
Yes that is what I am saying. But just because someone made some good points doesn’t mean we should keep using them as the defacto idealogue. Imagine if we kept saying “Hitler had some good points” when talking about animal rights or Osama Bin Laden for anti-imperialism. If you want an edgy thing to make a meme like this out of, use the ELF or ALF. Two groups that are controversial but lack the eco-fascism narrative of the unabomber.
there are better authors who have made those same points without all the fucking reactionary and eco-fascism tied to it.
Seems like a great reason to discuss Ted’s viewpoints. We should definitely discuss the ineffectual extremists. Compare and contrast. Weigh and measure. That’s what truth-seekers do. Telling people not to read a particular author borders on censorship.
But asking people to expand their reading list and providing actual recommendations - that is wonderful and commendable. Thank you for that!
I never said don’t read it, but comparing and contrasting is not what is happening. Its like when Osama Bin Laden’s manifesto or whatever was making the rounds and everyone was like “ya know he makes some good points.” Everyone just keeps parroting the points of far-right extremists cause they pointed out a pretty universal issue like imperialism, consumerism, environmental destruction, etc. If the only perspective that gets spread is that of a far-right nutjob, then it normalizes the problematic parts of their perspective. Its always just begins and ends with “the unabomber made some good points.” Not “the unabomber made some good points, but Bookchin is more practical and not a eco-fascist.”
Was the unabomber far-right? He seemed to hate industry with a passion. That doesn’t sound very far-right…
I’m not saying he’s a role model that we should emulate, and I disagree with his methods. But that doesn’t mean we should reject his ideas. Stalin was a terrible statesman and a brutal dictator, but philosophically he had some points worth discussing.
Lumping people into this category of being “untouchable” is not only an ad-hominem, but it’s also damaging, because it prevents people from engaging with the material critically and in environments where there’s a diversity of perspectives. Now the only people who read Stalin are the radical edgelords who are disillusioned with western society and so take everything he says uncritically at face value. It wouldn’t have the same allure if we didn’t make it something in the “restricted section.”
It’s perfectly valid to say “Ted’s actions were wrong, but some of his ideas are worth considering.”
To all the people in the comments being like “Ted had some good points.” Judi Bari, Peter Kropotkin, and Murray Bookchin are all people who have written about environmentalism and the problems of technology, industrialization, and such and better than the reactionary psychopath did. Fascists love the unabomber and use him to normalize eco-fascism. Stop fucking saying he had good points cause there are better authors who have made those same points without all the fucking reactionary and eco-fascism tied to it.
In case anyone is interested, I made some videos to help explain both Kropotkin and Bookchin:
To be clear, he was not an eco fascist, he stood against fascism. But he was en eco terrorist.
Not really enjoying this trend of everything being labelled as “fascism” these days.
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a duck. I don’t really care if the duck says its not a duck and that it is against ducks, its still a duck. When you go about blaming the lefties (of which he labelled fascists as leftists) and the gays, and envisioning a society that would functionally genocide a bunch of people I am gonna call you a fascist. Cause if we just got rid of technology and returned to primitive living, a lot of people would die. Namely disabled people and people with chronic illnesses. It is indirect eugenics. Its exactly why most anarchists nowadays do not associate with anarcho-primitivists, and call them eco-fascists as well.
The reason why people like Bookchin and Bari are better is because they critique industrialization while putting forward solutions that don’t kill a bunch of people.
And lets not pretend like fascism is this coherent or cohesive ideology. Its an ideology of opportunism. Mussolini and Hitler were vastly different, and even just comparing Mussolini’s writing to his actions there’s a lot of differences. For example Mussolini’s writings were anti-monarchist, yet the monarchy remained in fascist Italy because it gave him an opportunity.
Ted might not have been a fascist directly, but his ideology is not incompatible with fascism. And the consequences of his ideology is still genocide, even if indirectly.
For real. It waters down the meaning of the word “fascist,” and now when I talk about actual fascism (with a well-informed take because I only use that word when I’m applying it correctly), people don’t take me seriously because they think I’m just “labeling everyone you disagree with as a fascist.”
I’m not. I disagree with everyone I label as a fascist, yes. Because I disagree with fascism and I only label fascists fascists. But I’m perfectly capable of disagreeing with someone without labeling them a fascist, if they’re not a fascist. I do it all the time!
Uhhhhh
Doesn’t this inherently imply he does in fact have good points if they’re making the same points… you also make a good point that there’s better sources that don’t come with a ton of ideology baggage but what your saying here is yes he does have good points but read someone else saying his points instead
Yes that is what I am saying. But just because someone made some good points doesn’t mean we should keep using them as the defacto idealogue. Imagine if we kept saying “Hitler had some good points” when talking about animal rights or Osama Bin Laden for anti-imperialism. If you want an edgy thing to make a meme like this out of, use the ELF or ALF. Two groups that are controversial but lack the eco-fascism narrative of the unabomber.
Those other authors need better marketing.
Seems like a great reason to discuss Ted’s viewpoints. We should definitely discuss the ineffectual extremists. Compare and contrast. Weigh and measure. That’s what truth-seekers do. Telling people not to read a particular author borders on censorship.
But asking people to expand their reading list and providing actual recommendations - that is wonderful and commendable. Thank you for that!
I never said don’t read it, but comparing and contrasting is not what is happening. Its like when Osama Bin Laden’s manifesto or whatever was making the rounds and everyone was like “ya know he makes some good points.” Everyone just keeps parroting the points of far-right extremists cause they pointed out a pretty universal issue like imperialism, consumerism, environmental destruction, etc. If the only perspective that gets spread is that of a far-right nutjob, then it normalizes the problematic parts of their perspective. Its always just begins and ends with “the unabomber made some good points.” Not “the unabomber made some good points, but Bookchin is more practical and not a eco-fascist.”
Was the unabomber far-right? He seemed to hate industry with a passion. That doesn’t sound very far-right…
I’m not saying he’s a role model that we should emulate, and I disagree with his methods. But that doesn’t mean we should reject his ideas. Stalin was a terrible statesman and a brutal dictator, but philosophically he had some points worth discussing.
Lumping people into this category of being “untouchable” is not only an ad-hominem, but it’s also damaging, because it prevents people from engaging with the material critically and in environments where there’s a diversity of perspectives. Now the only people who read Stalin are the radical edgelords who are disillusioned with western society and so take everything he says uncritically at face value. It wouldn’t have the same allure if we didn’t make it something in the “restricted section.”
It’s perfectly valid to say “Ted’s actions were wrong, but some of his ideas are worth considering.”