When will you take the Ted pill Sup Forums?

When will you take the Ted pill Sup Forums?

When will you accept that leftism is a product of industrialization?

When will you realize that the unfulfilling nature of post-industrial life leads people to support leftists causes, not for the sake of those the cause claims to represent, but for the sake of satisfying an inner need for meaning that has been stolen from mankind by the machines?

When will you take the Ted pill and join in the resistance of the system that is destroying traditional values on a global scale?

Be smart. Be Ted pilled.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sVd0rlTeQtM
articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-09-12/news/9809120119_1_unabomber-theodore-kaczynski-dr-sally-johnson-paranoid-schizophrenia
youtube.com/watch?v=xLqrVCi3l6E
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

fuck off FBI

Being Ted piled has nothing to do with violence or with the criminal actions of Ted Kaczynski.

I've posted about this guy a lot here but the threads don't last long. Probably too deep for Sup Forums. He does actually hate leftists as much as us, he's just realised the truth beyond.

This is different type of red pill from Sup Forums

Sup Forums calls everything degenerate implying that civil society is worth saving. Ted is the exact opposite saying it is the source of our misery

My only issue with him is that he doesn't seem to address the pre-industrial leftists. The enlightenment thinkers whose ideas were represented in the French Revolution existed before the industrial Revolution, and he just seems to ignore them despite their obvious leftism and opposition to traditional values.

If Industrialization leads to leftism, then where do they fit into this?

can someone post the copypasta about leftists in his manifesto please

>This is different type of red pill from Sup Forums
That's why its called Ted pill.

and look at what facebook, instagram, snapchat and all the other hellhole social media normie sites have brought us.

I've been reading the manifesto lately. Top tier shit. I'm still processing it all. It's a lot to take in. I kind of want to go visit the guy, but I doubt it's possible.

I am Ted pilled. He was right about everything but I recognize that there is no way of changing anything, so I accept my demise.

Exactly
He still writes to this day. I bet if you try hard enough and really want to, you can write him a letter. I have no idea how all that works though.

Sup Forums considers degenerate things which go against nature (God). Industialisation is the ultimate degeneracy because it is the genesis of further degeneracy. It also destroys our humanity and personal meaning. Becoming a worker drone instead of performing actions directly for our survival and the benefit of our family and tribe. The state is not our tribe, it's an abomination foisted upon us by ((( elites ))) to exploit our labour.

You can write to him. He responds to letters most of the time. An user here showed us letters that Ted sent him.

Every year that passes by Ted's ideas become more and more relevant. I view him as a modern day prophet because he saw trends back in 1995 that even the futurists and technologists of the day weren't seeing. And he was right about everything.

Fucking try-hards

>anything to get you on another list.

This is what being Ted pilled is about

>"He claims that revolution, unlike reform, is possible, and calls on sympathetic readers to initiate such revolution using two strategies: to "heighten the social stresses within the system so as to increase the likelihood that it will break down" and to "develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology."[71] He gives various tactical recommendations, including avoiding the assumption of political power, avoiding any collaboration with leftists, and supporting free trade agreements in order to bind the world economy into a more fragile, unified whole."

Nothing to do with bombing. He only did that to get his message out there, and I believe that wasn't the best way to do it.

>implying we're not all mossad

>enlightenment thinkers whose ideas were represented in the French Revolution existed before the industrial Revolution
They paved the way for modern degeneracy. Undermining Monarchy, undermined the influence of the church and peoples faith in the virtues and leading a righteous life guided by spiritual principles, to be replaced by arbitrary systems of governance. This also allowed morality to be dictated by man, not God. Just as in the Garden of Eden, the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, to "judge" and be like Gods, came with a great cost. The fall of Christianity leads to the fall of the family, single motherhood. etc. etc.

>He still writes to this day. I bet if you try hard enough and really want to, you can write him a letter. I have no idea how all that works though.
I wrote to him once, he wrote back, but it was just a bunch of shit about the Bogdanoffs. Apparently they framed him.

Has Ted taken the Bogpill?

It's interesting that the fall of Christianity hasn't meant the fall of religion or God(s). Instead we have created new religions, new Gods and new idols. The religion of transhumanism is an interesting example of this and is slowly getting more and more popular. Transhumanists worship the god of singularity, the savior is technology, the prophets are technologists/futurists (Kurzweil, Musk, Zuckerberg, Brin etc.) and they have heresies (can't question the trends of technology, etc.)

Look around you and see that people are just as religious as before it's just that the gods/idols we worship have changed.

I think peacetime medieval society would have been great
men, horses and houses would be strong
anything pre-industrial revolution would be a struggle but nothing overly malicious or covert would exist

Totally agree. However, religions of old were based on nature, family and culture. The new ones are entirely artificial. Idolatry would be a fitting term.

One could almost say that "progress" is a new religion.

Also, he basically identified the same phenomena as Marx, its just that they both have different opinions on how to react to it.

Ted is right about some things but ignorant/blue pilled to others. Evidence is his bombing of no-name, do-nothing, non-expert professors and scientists. He just doesn't get the big picture like Hitler did.

He's just crazy.

>"progress" is a new religion.
No doubt. Just look how fanatical progressives are.

Try questioning homosexuality and transsexualism to a progressive and see how quickly they turn into religious fanatics. It's as if you've committed a huge heresy because you questioned their God (progress).

Not at all. He's incredibly rational, logical and knowledgeable.

If you read his works you'll find it difficult to question what he is saying because it is so rational.

I agree with this. But Marx, the solution to the capitalist machine which strips people of their humanity is not to replace it with a statist machine which strips people of their humanity.

Maybe he didn't do anything wrong? Just like Hitl...

I think Ted would have just disagreed with Hitler over whether or not traditional values and industrialization can coexist.

>“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.”

Hi FBI,

I'm Pekka and seeing Unabomber on Sup Forums catalog I just had to flag myself because I idolize the guy.
I sleep better at nights than you.

Not true. He makes some logical leaps of faith in what I've read. Sorry, but it's been too long for me to recall it off the top of my head.

This. He's probably one of the most rational modern thinkers I've ever read, ruthlessly analytical and systematic. He also uses a variety of sources, tries to ascertain their biases and lists all the references. Incredibly thorough, autistically so. Doesn't surprise me that he used to be mathematics professor.

I prefer not to be on any gov lists -- no thanks.

Here you go:

REMOVE KEBAB remove kebab
you are worst turk. you are the turk idiot you are the turk smell. return to croatioa. to our croatia cousins you may come our contry. you may live in the zoo….ahahahaha ,bosnia we will never forgeve you. cetnik rascal FUck but fuck asshole turk stink bosnia sqhipere shqipare..turk genocide best day of my life. take a bath of dead turk..ahahahahahBOSNIA WE WILL GET YOU!! do not forget ww2 .albiania we kill the king , albania return to your precious mongolia….hahahahaha idiot turk and bosnian smell so bad..wow i can smell it. REMOVE KEBAB FROM THE PREMISES. you will get caught. russia+usa+croatia+slovak=kill bosnia…you will ww2/ tupac alive in serbia, tupac making album of serbia . fast rap tupac serbia. we are rich and have gold now hahahaha ha because of tupac… you are ppoor stink turk… you live in a hovel hahahaha, you live in a yurt
tupac alive numbr one #1 in serbia ….fuck the croatia ,..FUCKk ashol turks no good i spit in the mouth eye of ur flag and contry. 2pac aliv and real strong wizard kill all the turk farm aminal with rap magic now we the serba rule .ape of the zoo presidant georg bush fukc the great satan and lay egg this egg hatch and bosnia wa;s born. stupid baby form the eggn give bak our clay we will crush u lik a skull of pig. serbia greattst countrey

>"Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of
groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American
Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists
themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit
it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely
because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with
their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE
inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology)."

Why can't pol see that Ted is /our guy/?!

Also posting rare Teds

Ted is correct in this case. Name one serious technological advancement which didn't encourage breakdown of traditional values. I'll wait.

Hello, Pekka.

>nothing overly malicious or covert would exist
That's because the Church burnt heretics and the like at the stake.

it's called primitivism, you faggot edgelord, not the "(((Ted))) pill"

Arrow heads, hammer, etc.

>I agree with this. But Marx, the solution to the capitalist machine which strips people of their humanity is not to replace it with a statist machine which strips people of their humanity.

How would you describe the Nazi solution to the problem?

Can you imagine if Ted didn't get into the ol' bomb stuff?

He could have been a world renowned professor, the right's answer to Chomsky.

you're on /pol, too late

Lmao i just realized that Terry Davis and ted both got redpilled by cia niggers
youtube.com/watch?v=sVd0rlTeQtM

now this is autism

thir, right here is BIG LEAGUE redpilled post.
only with exception that ted hates leftists even more than pol does. no joke. he pretty effectively disassembles the whole leftist mentality and what are the things that lead to having leftist mentality in his writings.

definately /our guy/

We abandoned the stick, war ettiquete changed.

I agree with most of what he said. The problems are pretty much as he described. ( There are probably a few details I differ on, but basically, yeah man. )

But he is like Karl Marx. He writes correctly about problems but then his solutions are ineffective, or as bad as or even worse than the problems.

Some problems in the world have no solution. One is man's addiction to the drug known as technology.

Watch UC Berkeley's Prof Gregory Clark's lectures on youtube. Or read his Farewell to Alms.

We're addicted and it's a damn poison. Withdrawal is going to be a bitch or it might even kill us.
There's no way around it. It's a bummer and there's nothing that can be done about it.

are you guys ludites?

>abandon stick
>traditional values
pick one

As for me I am a hypocrite. I believe in using technology to get personal advantage even though it will damage humanity as a whole.

Unless you can convince me that there is a viable way for human society to become technologically advanced without also becoming morally bankrupt, YES.

I guess I didn't word it properly (lol moving the goalposts). I mean industrial society, primitive tools are fine.

Though you could argue that arrows allowed women to hunt, when they were physically much weaker than men.

Altruism (Voluntary / Socially encouraged) is natural for small tribal groups. The state is unnatural. We're not wired for competing in a social setting of tens of millions.

Capitalism being less natural than socialism is complete bullshit. "Capitalism" is strawman Marxist terminology. What is actually meant is the free market. There is no market more natural than free exchange. Forced redistribution is very unnatural.

Nature itself creates winners and losers. It's fundamental to evolution. Redistributing the winnings from the winners and giving it to the losers is dysgenics and it operates against evolution.

That said, they were tackling bigger ((( economic ))) problems and I don't blame them for using socialism to create popular support, especially after a huge depression.

The real answer is simply humans are not evolved for globalism. This has nothing to do with technology as long as technology does not enable globalism, which is a tricky prospect. Humans are a local animal with some level of social organization. We never evolved to be globalists, we just don't have the time and right now we are undergoing an evolutionary pressure to become globalists, hence hivemind tendencies running out of control and wreaking havoc on more local organization that is traditional AND natural to our bodies and minds. Technology is a red herring.

what is the mcveigh pill?

If Jews weren't around i wouldn't be

so shitting in the toilet instead of the street damages humanity as a whole?

MKULTRA opened up his mind.

One of those poop pills you take for the probiotics

>world renowned professor
I don't think you understand how ((( academia ))) works, friend. It's particularly favourable to people like ((( Chomsky ))) and much less favourable to us.

If you push outside ((( their agenda ))) you become a "discredited" pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-philosopher, racist etc. Or just plain ignored.

Disclaimer: I am in no way advocating or approving of violence.

sounds like a Luddite

so indoor plumbing makes us weaker of character because we don't experience the character growth that comes from shitting behind a bush in the rain?

also, though you claim technology morally bankrupts as a society, you use the internet?

Well I know he wouldn't be loved within academia, but if he managed to publish enough I think a good university would keep him aboard even if his views were unpopular to the liberal academic mainstream.

The transhumanism pill is better

>Luddite
Sounds like you can't understand something without oversimplifying it

You're already on a list. May as well earn your spot.

Looks like we mostly agree on this point. The same way that women -can- work and compete with men but the majority will fail (Or be unsatisfied) because they are not evolved for it. The left wants to ignore our biology, the right embraces the facts and tries to make the best of it.

Smaller communities are overwhelmingly right leaning and large urban centres are overwhelmingly left leaning. But it's the technology which allows people to live and work in such high density. Urbanisation is impossible without industry.

>Kaczynski was a kissless virgin who once considered a sex change just so he could touch a vagina.

Is he dare I say /ourguy/?


articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-09-12/news/9809120119_1_unabomber-theodore-kaczynski-dr-sally-johnson-paranoid-schizophrenia

You aren't looking at the big picture. It is the culmination of millennia of technological advances and the small losses of humanity that each advance mandates that ultimately has brought us to the depraved, unfulfilling state in which we currently find ourselves.

yet you sit banging away on your computer/phone/tech device decrying it moral bankruptcy. even your idol Ted used a technological gadget called a typewriter. typical, myopic hypocrite

depraved or not, a civilization without technology has no future.

Actually, the modern toilet is incredibly unnatural and leads to health problems because we evolved to shit squatting, not sitting. Faeces is good for the soil and would be a consideration if we still grew our own food.

just because you have a toilet doesn't mean you can't squat shit in your backyard.

The only loose end is to explain why humans should not evolve towards globalism. I believe the answer is probably spiritual in nature, but I really don't have the answer. I just know that the globalism we've trapped ourselves in now is forcing us to evolve towards an idiocracy and we will likely see another split in the species as a whole if it keeps down this path. There will be a predatory/opportunistic aspect to this. It has to stop and people need to return back to environments similar to where their normal evolutionary path left off if we want to attain spiritual enlightenment. Ironically, technology may be the practical answer to return to a more normal lifestyle for everyone. It's just a matter of people accepting some uncomfortable truths and embracing radical changes as an investment for the future.

Occam's razor. Complexity is a cheat

The most degenerate pill there is. Once God, family, gender, sexuality, race, nationality, culture is erased, there will only be one thing left to erase, humanity. How you can not see that is the conclusion of degeneracy, I do not know.

I don't see the problem with using global communication to spread awareness of the real issues that humanity is facing.

Personally, I believe that a viable system in which technology is tamed and controlled so as to prevent the decay of mankind can be implemented. I remain skeptical though, and as such, I am sympathetic to primativism.

"prevent the decay of mankind"--decided by whom?

>why humans should not evolve towards globalism
Because our human dignity is more important than shekels. All the luxuries and cheap entertainment in the world will not fill the void created by selling out ourselves.

>a civilization without technology has no future.
>Muh future, muh human destiny, muh conquering the stars

Did it not also occur to you that technology can easily destroy civilization completely? Have you not heard of nuclear weapons?

Perhaps this adendum to the Fermi Paradox can illustrate the fallacy that is technological "progress."

>This is the argument that technological civilizations may usually or invariably destroy themselves before or shortly after developing radio or spaceflight technology. Possible means of annihilation are many,[68] including war, accidental environmental contamination or damage, resource depletion,[69] or poorly designed artificial intelligence. This general theme is explored both in fiction and in scientific hypothesizing.[70] In 1966, Sagan and Shklovskii speculated that technological civilizations will either tend to destroy themselves within a century of developing interstellar communicative capability or master their self-destructive tendencies and survive for billion-year timescales.[71] Self-annihilation may also be viewed in terms of thermodynamics: insofar as life is an ordered system that can sustain itself against the tendency to disorder, the "external transmission" or interstellar communicative phase may be the point at which the system becomes unstable and self-destructs.

I agree but you have to account for all possible visions of a globalist society if you want your answer to stick. It does come down to human nature. Spirit and DNA are intertwined with the truths of the universe more than people want to admit. They like to view the two as refuting each other, but the truth is it's all part of a bigger picture. The first thing we need to do is correct the jewish scourge. We need to take two steps back in history and replot our trajectories. We can use technology to help, but we can't rely on it nor let it guide us down a path we can't see.

>a civilization without technology has no future.
According to who? There are native Americans right now, free to live as their ancestors did. The only people stopping Europeans from doing this are ((( them ))) and their fucking regulations which care for the preservation of every race but our own.

((( They ))) use technology to corrupt and control us. Almost all of their power and influence stems from this. Without TV, social media, news, banking, smart phones to spy on us, they have no power. Reject their ((( inventions ))), marry a conserative woman, buy land, raise children who reject it too.

Hopefully the issue with technology will be so self-evident at some point in the future, that even democratically-elected leaders from across the globe will come to realize that reform is needed. I doubt this will ever happen though because these people are on the payroll of the industrialists and leftists.

We need to follow hitler's path but push for a more peaceful resolution (like he did in the beginning). I agree that we need to break free of the Jewish influence, but we also need to ship black people back to africa, asians back to asia, muslims/pajeets back to the middle east and india, and beaners back to mexico. Whites broke through to the next level of enlightenment but then the technology was hijacked and exploited by jews and the evil aspects of human nature. We lost sight mostly because a minority of people have had power over the technology.

>We can use technology to help, but we can't rely on it nor let it guide us down a path we can't see.

I think this is the biggest hurdle. Until a movement that recognizes this concept arises, Kaczynski's ideas are dead-on.

The sad reality is that it likely isn't possible.

>a civilization without technology has no no future
as in has no power to stand the test of time

>nuclear weapons
ok, but we are still here

but they don't because a more technologically advanced society replaced their way of life.

youtube.com/watch?v=xLqrVCi3l6E

>democratically-elected leaders from across the globe will come to realize
Politicians just follow the money because they only "serve" the country for a short time, it's not like they pass it on to their children or anything (As in monarchy). Politicians just get as rich as possible through their limited time of opportunity.

Also, a democracy selects for persuasive candidates, not moral ones. As with all competition, winners are those who best fit the environment and the environment is securing votes, not leading a country.

>When will you take the Ted pill Sup Forums?
No.
I have chosen functional analysis instead of complex analysis this semester.

>(like he did in the beginning)
Let's not forget who declared war on whom. Prior to the declaration, Germany had only reclaimed its stolen territory and protected its own people.

Democracy is largely to blame for the ((( demographic shift ))). Voters didn't want larger government, so the government brought in voters who do. The only peaceful break from this is to push hard for the genuine candidates of our cause before demographic collapse and redpill as many whites as possible. Sup Forums is already doing this.

Let's not forget that Hitler was also elected democractically. It can happen but it takes extreme circumstances.

>as in has no power to stand the test of time

More emotional jargon about some sort of idealized greater human destiny.

Societies without technology and it's ills don't have to worry about the dangers associated with our post-industrial world (described below), and therefore have much better chances of "Standing the test of time." (Whatever that even means).

>ok, but we are still here

For now. In case you didn't notice, nuclear weapons are still here too. Our worries go beyond those however. Technology and industrialization could also destroy the natural balance of the planet and cause our civilization to collapse. The other big danger is the leftists. As more and more of the population becomes unfulfilled as a result of meaningless industrial life, they will support leftists causes in a search for meaning. Our civilization could very-well collapse as third-worlders are imported into the Western world in the name of "equality" and "justice."

There is no going back. Industrialization is here to stay.

>Hes wrong but i wont prove how hes wrong, i just know he is.

What you call degeneracy, I call evolution

See
Your "evolution" will more than likely erase humanity entirely.

>standing the test of time
as in an extinction event

not only are our nukes still here, we've used them before, and we are still here

>as in an extinction event
The most dangerous and most-likely-to-occur extinction events are self inflicted and are made possible by technology.