Has anyone read this? Was he right? What should be our response?

Has anyone read this? Was he right? What should be our response?
> Industrial Society and its Future
> The Psychology of Modern Leftism
> Feelings of Inferiority
> Oversocialization
> The Power Process
> Surrogate Activities
> Autonomy
> Sources of Social Problems
> Disruption of the Power Process in Modern Society
> How some people adjust
> The motives of scientists
> The nature of freedom
> Some principles of history
> Industrial-Technological society cannot be reformed
> Restriction of freedom is unavoidable in industrial society
> The bad parts of technology cannot be separated from the good parts
> Technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom
> Simpler social problems have proved intractable
> Revolution is easier than reform
> Control of human behavior
> Human race at a crossroads
> Human suffering
> The future
> Strategy
> Two kinds of technology
> The danger of leftism
> Final note
Text here partners.nytimes.com/library/national/unabom-manifesto-1.html

Before people start spamming meme balls about anarcho-primitivism, note that Kaczynski differentiates between small-scale technology (craftsmen such as metalworkers, farmers etc.) and organization dependent technology which requires a state apparatus or complex network of experts to create (eg: roman aqueducts, refrigerators)

I found his critiques quite interesting, and in line with my own thinking, as I have more or less disconnected from modern technology with the exception of Sup Forums and related internet browsing. I don't use social media, don't watch TV or listen to modern music, don't like modern movies, barely use my phone, and try to drive as little as possible. I don't think I fully agree with him however, in that we should attempt to do away with all industrial society, but I am certainly selective in what technology I use.

Other urls found in this thread:

thelightphone.com/)
cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

his observations are all correct, the solutions i'm not sure about.

he nailed the problems of current society, though. 100%

have you read what he has to say about us and other internet phenomenon?

1/2

2/2

I agree, his analysis of liberals/leftists is fascinating and deserves more attention. What do you think is an alternative to breaking down industrial society, beyond withdrawing from coercive technology as much as possible? I have adopted a number of personal ideals, such as
> no TV
> cut down time on Sup Forums to 1 hr/day (difficult)
> no porn
> stop listening to pop music
> stop listening to talk radio
> listen to more classical music
> read more non-fiction
> get rid of my smartphone
> buy local
> no movies
> get rid of internet at home (very hard, would have to go to library or coffee shop to use internet)

Other technology however, I'm happy to embrace, like
> refrigerators
> using a car
> modern medicine

Interesting, he underestimates meme magic.

bump. C'mon folks, this is the one actual discussion thread on Sup Forums right now.

there are no solutions tho unless you consider mass genocide of humans a solution.

Ted pretty much just provides the end game vision of society/technology

You can't stop it.. just accept your demise pretty much

Ted is the ultimate/final redpill that a Sup Forumsack goes through I feel.

It's hard to swallow at first but once you do you can't see reality in the same light.

To think that this guy could see all this coming back in 1995 is amazing to me. He was truly a modern day prophet.

So what, we just accept that we will be fucked in the ass by the ever expanding surveillance state? I can appreciate his arguments, but look at Hungary, look at Denmark, they are leading the way by embracing a conscious ethnic-nationalism and rejection of modernity. We cannot allow ourselves to be ruled by technology.

(checked)
I don't know tbqh. I haven't read his stuff (yet, it's on my list), but I'm definitely sympathetic to AnPrim (thanks also to Varg).

I am also trying to reduce my use of technology and consumption of meaningless entertainment, but it's hard considering I'm studying IT/CS.

I don't think there's much any Individual can do besides saving himself and his family, i.e. drop out of society, go live in a rural area, become self-sufficient and hope/wait for the collapse...

Ted was far too redpilled for his own good.

How are you reducing your use of technology? I find that consumer entertainment is the easiest to drop, while structural technologies like the internet, the phone, household appliances and automobile are much, much harder.

I mean, I would rather hold on to my washing machine and dish washer, thank you very much, but I can do without Hollyjew and Snapchat

Those countries will have the same problems lel

I think you need to re-read Industrial Society and Its Future if you think Hungary and Denmark is a good example of a society that Ted advocated for.

T H I S

That's what happens when you go too deep into the mind of the machine

But I am not advocating for the kind of society that Ted is advocating for. I am saying that those countries are ones which are charting a different course with respect to modernity, one which we would do well to follow. I can appreciate his critiques of technology, and his concept of the power process, that we are cut off from viscerally providing for our physiological needs and thus require surrogate activities with which to busy ourselves. I get that, but I do not think that his anarcho-primitivist revolution is the answer. We need to get people to stop using social media, to stop consuming mass media and mainstream media, and to spend more time getting to know their neighbors and the books of Western civilization. Burn all the smartphones and smart TVs if you like, but I'm going to hang onto my fridge.

Yup. It is truely the final red pill. Modern society is bullshit. I came to the same conclusion a different way. I took a month long survival camp and found that it was the best time of my life. Then I started to question the modern world. I didn't even learn that anybody else had the same feelings until someone posted a unabomber thread in here and I read his manifesto.

The real question is in the details as some people have mentioned. Which technology should we keep, etc. Ted divides technology into two groups as mentioned. Is that the best way to do things?

Someone said they want to keep the fridge, but that means there is someone slaving away in a factory in china doing the exact same repetitive movements. It means reliance on a central power grid and infrastructure... etc

Then there is the question of military. How would we defend against societies that continued in an industrialised fashion?

To start with, at least, we need to re-evaluate our use of technology and our lives. Maybe just start one thing at a time and go from there. That is generally how problems are solved, rather than giant revolutionary reforms that you have no idea are going to work or not. Just slowly evolving towards a society where we use technology in a more human-friendly way.

I have always felt ashamed of having a bad handwriting. It made me feel autistic but seeing now Ted had almost the same is a bit flattering

His handwriting could be better.

I noticed that he wrote lengthy sentences with commas. That's why intelligent people do.

In public school in America some fat bitch "teacher" would say those are "run-on" sentences haha.

Intelligent people write long sentences. Fuck fat woman and their "teaching".

>all of this free knowledge

i'm going to fucking die

I feel that this is a much better approach. Technology should be a tool, not our master. The other issue is (like in the memeballs) at what point you stop suppressing technology. If someone is able to create a more efficient method of plowing fields, will you forcibly stop them? If someone discovers a natural remedy to the common cold, will you burn them at the stake for trying to create modern medicine? If someone comes up with a better way of creating a bow and arrow, will you stab them to death and smash all their work? There's no end once you decide all technology is evil. If we wish to undo the physical and psychological harms of modern technology, we would have to consider what exactly those harms are, and how we might change our relationship with technology so as to ameliorate them. A better solution would be to change the way our cities and suburbs are set-up so that they incorporate greater amounts of green space, have stores and amenities within walking distance, as well as to voluntarily opt out of mass media consumption like Twitter, Kikebook, Snapchat. I think the biggest personal steps someone could make would be to
a) get rid of their smartphone and get something like a lightphone (thelightphone.com/)
b) get rid of personal internet at home, and only use the library to access the internet
c) get rid of your TV and vidya
That would fix 90% of our individual dysfunctions with technology, overnight

I think Ted addresses your solution in the Manifesto in 'Some Principles of History'. Read Paragraphs 99-108 and tell me why your reformist idea won't violate one of those principles. cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt

It seems yours violates Principles 1 and 4.


>100. FIRST PRINCIPLE. If a SMALL change is made that affects a
long-term historical trend, then the effect of that change will almost
always be transitory - the trend will soon revert to its original
state. (Example: A reform movement designed to clean up political
corruption in a society rarely has more than a short-term effect;
sooner or later the reformers relax and corruption creeps back in. The
level of political corruption in a given society tends to remain
constant, or to change only slowly with the evolution of the society.
Normally, a political cleanup will be permanent only if accompanied by
widespread social changes; a SMALL change in the society won't be
enough.) If a small change in a long-term historical trend appears to
be permanent, it is only because the change acts in the direction in
which the trend is already moving, so that the trend is not altered
but only pushed a step ahead.

and


> 104. FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance,hen set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to.

I don't see any reason why the first principle should be taken as an ironclad rule. And even if it is the case that my individual actions or protestations will not be able to change the trajectory of history, I will have had the benefit of not subjecting myself to the detrimental effects of mass media and technology overload. If these actions are merely part of a larger trend, then so what? Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. While I can appreciate (and even agree with) Ted's insistence that a new society cannot be designed on paper, I am primarily arguing for my own benefit, so that I may be able to clearly express my ideas and opinions to myself and others. At the very least, I will have clarity about my own ideals, and can attempt to live by them.

>Ted's insistence that a new society cannot be designed on paper, I am primarily arguing for my own benefit, so that I may be able to clearly express my ideas and opinions to myself and others. At the very least, I will have clarity about my own ideals, and can attempt to live by them.
Oh if that's the case then I agree with this. I myself am aiming to take a similar path.

Anything further to add about what technology to cut out of your life?
> get rid of your smartphone
> get a dumbphone
> get rid of cable and personal internet
> get a library membership or go to a coffeeshop
> don't watch movies at home
> don't listen to the radio
> don't listen to modern music (Classical and instrumental are okay)

kind of hard to say since he is so cut off from internet culture and its direct effect on society. He has no idea what youtube is, so I wounder if he understand the power of Kek