Ted Kaczynski

Why does most of Sup Forums accept Ted Kaczynski's ideas on the psychology of modern leftists (They suffer from feelings of inferiority, oversocialization, and as a collective whole have totalitarian tendencies), but hesitant on accepting Ted Kaczynski's view that technology is enslaving humanity and needs to be destroyed?

Furthermore, what arguments would you give opposing the idea that technology has limited our human freedom and dignity?

Just curious to see what you guys can come up with because I've yet to see a solid argument against Ted's claim that freedom and technology cannot go hand and hand. Most people just dismiss him as crazy because he killed a bunch of people with mail bombs.

Pic is part of what he wrote about leftist.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8EHgfn_brPU
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism
xahlee.org/p/um/um-s04.html
wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/AI_boxing
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

He was definitely a freak genius. His execution, no pun intended, is what I don't agree with. But hey, sometimes you have to live in a cabin and produce mail bombs. Such is life.

This is the discussion everyone needs to be having. We need to scale back our technology and our civilization.

>we

>muh genius 160+ IQ Harvard Student
>only 3 kills and still got caught
I have a feeling "intelligence" really doesnt matter for this type of shit

He got caught because of his brother. He was actually one of the most elusive killers in the 20th century.

He had a clever strategy undoubtedly. Take a look at this.

youtube.com/watch?v=8EHgfn_brPU

Ted is right about technology, it's enslaving us and already has. If you use a computer or piece of digital for more than an hour a day, you are enslaved. This includes me.

Do you really feel qualified to discuss Unabomber when you don't know shit about the case...

over socialization can do that to a man

At the end of the day, I think true happiness comes from a life of family, community, and hard work. Technological advancements have eroded all three over the years. It's no wonder that rates of depression and suicide and general unhappiness are positively correlated to the pace of technological progress.

WUZ BRAD PITT N SHIT

Niggers can't even Kangzpost correctly.

The Unabomber was right about most, if not all, of the ills our society faces.

Everybody is afraid of giving up comfort is the easiest solution to that problem. I know people who are staunch environmentalists that want to stop global warming, but are also very hesitant to think that a big drop in standards of living may be a solution. And whether or not you believe in global warming, the point is that even people who do believe in it would passively choose catastrophe because they fear loss of living standards.

It's just the way we have contextualized modern civilization for so long. Growth and technological progress are largely the ways in which we judge ourselves. To even suggest that maybe technology is damaging to the extent that we should abandon a lot of it is seen as crazy.

And I don't necessarily agree with Ted completely, but I do think he represents something that even a lot of the leftists he disparages would agree with. I see a lot of twitter leftists say that we need to stop judging things by economic progress, which actually runs counter to a lot of older leftist thought which claimed communism could out perform capitalism. Now there are many leftists who will say "yeah, having a 25 hour work week could cause the economy to shrink, but so what? It's the humane thing to do. I want free time". That is somewhat anti-modern, in the sense that you are stepping away from largely economic measures of progress. But the right has been edging that way too. People are just disillusioned with living for technology and the economy.

It's an interesting question. There have been loads of science fiction/dystopian novels that have very realistic predictions for the technology of the future and more importantly the dangers of technology. A myriad of books have been written about the dangers of artificial intelligence alone. I enjoy most things about tech but when I step back and look at the big picture has ALL tech benefitted humanity in 100% of cases? Of course not. A good example is electronic surveillance. Sure it catches criminals, but as we've already seen it's extremely easy for those in control to abuse their power to surveil.

Technology is going to enslave us, the problem was that that guy was a looney.

Don't take life advice from an autistic shed-dweller who decided to abandon society to live in the woods in Montana and terrorize people.

Who says pol doesn't accept it?

Tech made the globalist shit we have today

If most of Sup Forums accepts the notion that technology erodes freedom.

Than why the hell are there so many national socialist on this board?

National socialist embrace technology because of the power it brings to their nations.

3.. 3 people with bombs. I'll agree that some tech is limiting freedoms. Mass surveillance, AI, Robots. But all of them allow for more options. The "freedom" to do more.

I've read more Kaczynski than you have you scoundrel

>be smarter than 99.9% of people
>predict the future and how we can prevent it
>get called a looney
>dumb people have more influence than you
>get tired of speaking so you bomb some people and become famous
>say you'll stop bombing if the newspaper publishes your manifesto
>your brother reads the manifesto and turns you in
mfw

Eventually people will decide to live life over be glued to a screen

Well, mass surveillance is horrible, but without technology we wouldn't have any progress.

Kaczyski divided technology into 2 categories. Technology which empowers an individual to better fulfill the power process and technology which empowers the state at the cost of the individuals role in the power process.

So for example... a rifle can help me kill an animal for food. Whereas a microwave oven just enables society to feed me hot pockets instead of cooking a real meal so that I can get out the door quicker and slave away in a menial job.

Me having a rifle is of no benefit to society in the grand scheme of things. In fact it is a detriment because it enables me to disagree with society.

Still. He should have known about writing styles. His brother thought, just maybe, and went to dig out old papers he still possessed from his brother.

he discovered similar vernacular between the two then went to the fbi with his findings.

really does suck that his brother did him in

>but without technology we wouldn't have any progress.

What is "progress"?

Progress towards the absolute erosion of individuality of course.

Personally I felt the part on leftists was the weakest part of his book (I agreed with pretty much everything else). He makes no attempt to engage with any of the serious left-wing ideas, and just uses a strawman argument to paint his 'leftism is a mental illness' narrative. I definitely think his arguments re inferiority, oversocialisation, etc, are accurate for SOME left-wingers, but he comes across like a bit of a Sup Forums-tier manchild during this argument, which is a shame because I think the rest of the book hits the nail on the head perfectly.

>t. Donkey
You're proving his point right now. You faggots turn into salt mines when confronted with the uncomfortable realities of the world instead of playing them out with cold hard logic.

I agree.

>"People fear things they depend on but don’t have any control over. That’s technology."

People who depend on computer but don't actually understand anything about them can only be slaves.

People are afraid of giving up their nice technology and comfortable living. Plus, you have to worry about someone else coming in and forcing things on you if you disarm yourself by dumping all of this high tech stuff.

I had that flag accidentally, forgot to change it. I'm natsoc, which is a left-wing position, but much more defensible (in my view) than the strawman liberal position that Kasczynski knocks down. I agree that his description fits lots of liberals perfectly (most of my family, for one thing), but it's far too broad a generalisation to say leftism is a mental illness, and comes across as a childish smear.

Tech IS enslaving humanity.

The question is when will it finally be destroyed?

"Which is a left wing position"

No. It fucking isn't. Read a book nigger. Hierarchy determines left and right.

You can't heal the sick without halting evolution. You can't house and feed the week without forcing everybody to slave away growing food they will not eat and building houses they will not live in.

Leftism is it's own meme.

Your "leftism" is not Ted' "leftism".

Also this. In the 90s leftism pretty much referred exclusively to revolutionary Marxism

>socialism isn't left-wing

Hmm yes very interesting

That's my point, it's not accurate to say 'leftism' is a mental illness, because he's talking about a specific subset of people who follow a specific subset of leftismn

Progress is that you are using this site now to contact people around the world almost instantly, progress is that we have landed on the moon by using spaceships, computers, electronics... Etc

technology increases each individual worker's productivity, and increased productivity increases wages (in a free market)

The problem is the government is using the technology to enslave us. Give the power back to the people and technology is fine, or great even.

obviously he means feminism

Yo

But AI scares me a bit... I mean how can you control something that's million times smarter than you?

>Technology which empowers an individual
bitcoin

You pull the plug.

We are have like 50 years til strong AI.

>technology needs to be destroyed
you have to be a special kind of stupid to even think that would be remotely possible.
thats like saying humans evolved from sea creatures and wern;t meant to stand on two legs, so you cut off your legs because your neighbor could beat you in a foot race

But that problem with pulling the plug is that AI might become so heavily integrated into economic decision making processes that it might result in economic suicide.

I recommend everyone to read his "Critique of Anarchoprimitivism"

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

the technological society is self regulating in the long term but it will be a painful transition, all transitions are - just look at the industrial revolution where there were years of suffering in factories and many people lost their jobs for a period of time

never under estimate the power of society to adapt to changes in itself

And what will you do in 50 years, what will happen when AI becomes a reality, well to escape doom of our civilization we must merge our brain with AI, transhumanism is the answer to escape this dystopian future...

This guy is dumb as shit.
It is just generalizations.

xahlee.org/p/um/um-s04.html

Also this is trash

29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black “underclass” they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects more leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers “responsible.” they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job

cooment too long but whats wrong with trying to make them become civilized? ""white"" values are objectively better.

I wish I could respond but I haven't finished reading it yet. Gonna do that now, hope the thread is still up.

Hey asshole. Can you sing? Ted couldn't. So he threw his whole life away by killing some random people. Now he sits in Florence ADX and still can't sing for shit. Asshole Wurld.

>what's wrong with trying to etc

Apparently you're dumb as shit because that is what the entire manifesto is about. The problem with modern industrialized civilization runs to its core for Ted. White middle class values are the values that industrialized civilization runs on, and he is criticizing that model completely.

They are objectively better in maintaining and advancing the technological system.

To understand Ted you have to understand he does not give a damn about the values of a technological society as they only serve economic and technological progress and not humanity itself.

>what arguments would you give opposing the idea that technology has limited our human freedom and dignity?

Im not sure I would. Im not sure many people here would. If technology and human happiness were even roughly correlated, then we should be in the most harmonious and happy era that mankind has ever known. Yet despite how easy we have it (in the west), people seem to be objectively getting more and more unhappy. Higher rates of depression, suicide, substance abuse, and so on.

Its either the result of technology making life too easy, thus robbing it of the meaning which is derived from hardship. Or its due to the proliferation of ideas and interconnectedness that modern technology allows, which runs contrary to basic human psychology. We are tribal creatures and we want to belong to the ingroup. But we are robbed of that chance, because everyone can talk to everyone else, there are blurred lines between groups now, even between countries.

So instead of belonging to a small ingroup and being happy and content, we belong to a huge faceless outgroup where nobody really knows or cares about each other. People who live in small towns / villages tend to be happier than their equivalent city counterparts precisely because of this.

Advancing technology is the only way to effectively advance humanity. Its tools to keep furthering our species.

What does he support if he doesnt support "white" values?

Just because he killed a bunch of people doesnt make him smart.

I wonder if humans lived on this planet perhaps for many millions of years, in primitive and then something happens about 10,000 years ago and suddenly you have civilisation 'flourish'.
Could it not be a Von Nuemann probe arrived in orbit around Earth, dropped some deed mix and about a few millennia later the uprated humans are ready to replicate the probe and launch it to the next destination.

Good post. The biggest criticism I have of Ted's ideas is this, that he believes the major psychological issue with modern industrialized people is rooted in powerlessness in the system. Marxists identify this as an issue as well, but of course most aren't anti-industrial society. They try to reconcile industrial production with human need for control of their own livelihoods.

But there is also the basic question, how much of the feeling of alienation could be from lack of community rather than lack of power. Personally, I don't think the root of any of my discomfort with society is something like lack of direct knowledge or control over my food like Ted claims. I could be wrong, but it doesn't jump out to me as a core anxiety. But, I do have a lot more desire for a certain social atmosphere that doesn't seem like it exists where I live.

Also, it is unsurprising Ted wouldn't consider this as such a problem, because he literally lived in the woods for a long time. He is a loner, the manifesto is his problem with society. It doesn't allow him to be as alone as he'd want, hence why he got mad when some industrial logging started encroaching on a forest he was in.

I agree OP. Same with Hitler. Take away the Holahoax and he was spot on! Puzzles me.

This. Ted Kaczynski internalized the Jewish critique of european civilization and became effectively anti-white.

>eventually

His autism was off the charts for sure. And he summed up Leftists and the cause of their neurosis, but yeah he definitely took the wrong course of action. Ideas and ideologies have to be fought in kind, not from terrorizing people from a shed in the middle of the woods.

Holy shit how is this so true
>hesitant on accepting Ted Kaczynski's view that technology is enslaving humanity and needs to be destroyed?
I'd say that, you know, he may not be right everywhere.

He doesn't really care what values a society has along as they are capable of creating autonomous, small scale groups that do not worship technology the same way we do.

I enjoy going on month long hikes. It honestly is the only time I feel truely free. I can do anything I want. Shit in the woods, climb a tree, murder someone. It is very liberating that there are no set roads, no concrete to bind you to a specific path. You can do as you like. Lay about all day, swim, chill and write. It is absolute freedom, but it is also entails absolute responsibility. No one is going to come and find you, no one is going to help you if you get hurt or your food runs low, there is no government to stop or yell at you. The real trick is realizing that when you come back to society that you are still free, but we put up these conscious barriers. We censor ourselves and act a certain way due to habit.

>i'm so smart
>i'll use bombs to make my point

hurrrrrrrr

>national socialists are lying commie scum by another name
FTFY

This is what we call a headlong rush. Technology poses a problem ? Solve it with technology... The solution is now a problem and we must solve it the same way, with a newer, more global, more powerful technology. We do not control the flow of events, technology is 100% autonomous in its functioning, it's a foreign body which alienates us.

>world is enslaved by AI
>Argentina remains free
>"How do, Argentina?"
>"Pull plug, retards"
kek

>but hesitant on accepting Ted Kaczynski's view that technology is enslaving humanity and needs to be destroyed?

I completely agree with him here, technology is allowed to advance as much as it is capable of with zero concern from anyone. People assume the Nuke will always be the most powerful weapon but there is absolutely nothing stopping someone from making an even more powerful bomb assuming they come across the technology.

The internet was also a mistake, people were never meant to be this connected with strangers. The internet is a huge reason with everyone hating each other. You're going to hate people when you're constantly exposed to the trashiest members of their group.

I'm addicted to technology though, would probably die without it at this point so technology already won the battle.

Why don't you agree with it? Do you condemn it? Tbh it probably the only way he would ever get his manifesto out of obscurity and into the public sphere so mission accomplished.

He's just saying that leftists don't really like niggers. The nigger way of life is seen as suffering to leftists which is why they push niggers into a white way of life (Education, family, school).

Really, niggers would be happier in Africa with their own kind doing the things they are naturally meant to do. Forcing someone into the 9 to 5 lifestyle of the white man is wrong when they are built for that type of life.

That's why Asian, Jews and Whites do so much better in the west than blacks. Blacks aren't meant for this type of life, they don't enjoy it and they don't want it (aside from a few) most are extremely happy living in the ghetto with their families and friends and enjoy gang warfare and criminality. Liberals can't accept that, they are the real racists.

K's reference to repressed feeling of inferiority of the could be interpreted as awareness of leeching off unearned cultural advantages/heritage.
The modern human anthill is a large scale experiment bootstrapped into existence by Kaczynski tier freaks.
K doesn't want to share a free ride for eternity with the numbnuts, its understandable.
Supplying the brainpower to maintain a dead end existence is pure hell.

Trips of truth. We must scale back at all costs to avoid a Orwellian dystopia

Sup Forums is not one person
you want to debunk leftists, ask for proof of surplus "theft"

what weaponized autism was before the internet

>technology is enslaving humanity and needs to be destroyed
If the human can't control his technology, he is a fool and must be owned.
Sup Forums here.

>but hesitant on accepting Ted Kaczynski's view that technology is enslaving humanity and needs to be destroyed?
>Furthermore, what arguments would you give opposing the idea that technology has limited our human freedom and dignity?
Because transhumanism is a superior ideology. Suffering is the result of physical processes in the brain. With genetic engineering and other technology, it may be possible to eliminate all forms of suffering and mental illness by modifying the brain, and according far higher levels of happiness and intelligence than could ever be achieved naturally.

Second of all, anarcho-primitivism would be much harder to achieve than transhumanism. With the way technology is developing, transhumanism seems inevitable. Anarcho-primitivism would require killing off 99.9% of the population, and then somehow stopping them from recreating modern civilization. The only ways I can think of to achieve this are A. Driving humanity extinct with some type of weapon of mass destruction, or B. Creating an artificial superintelligence that is programmed to force humanity into living in a primitive state, with self replicating robots existing as a hive mind patrolling the earth, crushing any signs of new civilization.

Actually I totally agree with Uncle Ted concerning technology and the demise of the human condition. I worked in IT in the mid 90s-mid 00's. 80+ hours a week, more money than I knew what to do with as a young man. After nearly a decade my ex-wife divorced me, for not spending time with her. I was getting paid MAD MONEY and was trying to make it into something big enough that I could retire on my 30. This kind of led to a mental breakdown. I sold off/threw away what was then ~$20,000 worth of computer, network, grfx design gear etc. I went full Kaczynski, stopping just short of mail bombings and attempting to hurt officials etc. I went fully off the grid for ~15 years. I eventually wound up in counseling and on several medications, which gladly I am off of now.

Why not? He isn't wrong.

Is the internet really that bad? It has made my life immensely better due to all the free information available. Plus it's a great alternative to mainstream news.

>never meant to be
Its evolution things change get over it

This guy is a great example of what happens when you overdose on redpills.

shit meme

can you tell some stories and realizations of what you went through?
I've made enough to go off the grid by buying bitcoin years ago and I'm considering it because society stresses me out

damn dude you need to green text that shit in it's own thread

Is pic related not what most of the first world looks like now? As with all things, moderation is key. However, these proudest monkeys can not help but get a neurochem treat every few seconds, with (you's) likes, upvotes, retweets etc.
Man has turned himself into a mindless drone zombie thanks to modern comms technology.

fucking a

Dude, fucking exactly. He's so fucking tapped into the ethos of these whacko's it's kind of creepy. Like it's the work of some powerfully minded academic writing with the perspective of an already played out string of historical events. I read his manifesto a few times because I kept thinking I had misread it somehow. I threw some of the ideas listed at friends and family of mine and they were all like "wow, that's an excellent take on what we're seeing" I never told them where I read it though, because well, there's no need. I'd recommend reading or listening to the whole thing. It's on youtube and PDF form.

It's called:
"The future of industrial society"

Technology could be used for good if it wasn't controlled by whacked-out panoptic information brokers in Silicon Valley.

wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/AI_boxing

I may do that one day. It is still pretty hard to talk about and deal with as no one really wants to admit their own weaknesses etc. Though if it can help an user avoid the experiences I have been through it might be worth it.

I think if technology allowed us to be more self-reliant then we would keep our freedom and dignity. Right now it's used for mass production & communication instead.

Most costly investigation for one individual too. It took decades before they even understood the encryption he used for his own documents containing all his plans.

The irony is that if he had sat tight for about 15 years technology could have delivered his message better than any newspaper.

He could have become a YouTuber in the hills of Montana and if his message resonated enough, millions of people would have heard it without it being tied to a lunatic murderer

muh tesla

jesus christ this guy spent a lot of time on this shit.

i kinda feel bad for him knowing he barely got anything done