Ted Kaczynski. Was he right?

I just finished reading the Unabombers Manifesto and he makes some very great arguments. Most of his arguments said what I was thinking, but couldn't put into words. Throughout the book I constantly tried to contradict his arguments to not fall into a ideological trap. But found very few refutations.

Most of the arguments against him is that "you use technology while saying that it's bad" Which he actually addressed in his book, and refuted.

Does anyone have any arguments against his book except for low IQ squanders of trying to form an argument against it as shown above?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/t2Wg8uMJixo
youtu.be/TA41P_N9Hv8
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Throughout the book I constantly tried to contradict his arguments to not fall into a ideological trap. But found very few refutations.
That's because he's right about the left and everything.

I haven't looked at it in a long time, but isn't a bit contradictory?
>rails against leftism
>then complains about the industrial revolution being the worst thing that ever happened
The industrial revolution is the reason why most of the world no longer lives in grinding poverty. Sure, there's plenty of things about modern life to complain about, but I'm not convinced he had it all figured out.
He showed have just stayed in his cabin and not bombed random people.

>showed have just
should have just

I didn't know he was mk ultra

People who wind up in a federal penitentiary are generally wrong about pretty much everything, user.

>Being this much of a bluepill

He hurt dogs.

>not opposing modern comforts is blue pilled

The two big refutations to his arguments are

1. You're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand about which "technology" to use

and

2. He doesn't address nihilism

There aren't many people in penitentiaries with an IQ of 167.

They're not Knockout Gaming you when they're working dick

The so called comforts you talk about has also caused much psychological pain, which is why we have such a high rate of mental illness today. Which the system only tried to cure and not prevent. Such as pills.

...

He does draw a line in the sand with technology. Small community based technology, and large organized based technology.

The technology we have today, refrigerators, Iphones, Cars. Are organized based technology.

Windmills, watermills, axes etc... are community based technology.

All of his arguments are logically secure to a level that you can't easily refute them.

But there's a big gap between his arguments and his answer to those arguements: anarcho-primitavism.

And yes I wished he addressed nihilism. But that can be applied either way. Should we continue to create more technology? To do what? What is the point?

You can use nihilism either way.

Look up what they did to him in Harvard.

I'm not denying that he has a point on that stuff. But talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Notice how in the timeline of pictures of him, in 1959 to 1962 his smile turns to a frown and stays that way ever since.

yes KILL all jews.
their IQ is lost.

>gadsden flag
>wants to control the technological pursuits of other people, i.e. tread on them

Proof positive that IQ is a meme, and that there are untestable variables responsible for the success or failure of individuals and races across time which remain unquantified.

Although I agree with much of what he wrote, possibly even the majority of it, I can't come to terms with the idea that a guy who sent mail bombs to random innocent people is entirely sane or even intelligent. Actions always speak louder than words, and what he did was not only stupid, but no better than what these goat fucking sandniggers are doing today.

IQ is a negative thing if you use it wrong, (jews, chinese)

I am a minarchist government wise and economically. But I am simply exploring new ideas that deal with the realm of a bigger idea.

>Was he right?
Yes.

No. Mcveigh was right tho

Of course he was that's why the CIA had him MKultra'd in college.

He's totally right. Take all this North Korea shit. North Korea could nuke a variety of targets and kill hundreds of thousands or even millions, but as long as it's not a critical infrastructure type target, there would be no change in our daily loves (much in the same way hundreds of thousands died in the boxing day tsunami and not a blip was felt in the west). But it'd go down in history as just the worst event ever by these talking head niggers.
Yet here's Google and Facebook, mindfucking a billion people everyday, with a strong preference for kids and females. Something that will have a measurable effect on the people I or my kids interact with on a daily basis. And nobody notices, nobody cares (-G.C.). The people with money can just continue to isolate themselves away (private schools, home schools, self transportation, nannys, private vacations, etc) from the problems they create while my kid has to rub shoulders with Jamal whose been watching porn since he was 5.
North Korea? These faggot ass newsstations shouldnt be giving a rat fuck about Kim Shit and instead be continually exposing the wild west behavior of these asshole tech companies that were able to grow into behemoths due to poor laws. We now have a maasive fucking public spy operation in place and it's like, eh, no big deal. REALLY? There's really no other conclusion to come to beyond implicating every single person (who hasn't attempted to educate the masses) with a generous salary as being part of systematic oppression. Period.

This

It hurts me to think how bad its become. No one asked for this.

"OP literally cannot stop sucking cock, even for a brief moment."

-Ted Kaczynski

Seems legit.

But what if I have an iPhone that doesn't require anyone else to operate? What if a group of 100 can make an iPhone? His logic is completely arbitrary.

Modern comforts like what? Living in a shithole metropolis full of sociopathic mongrels, wageslaving all your life for some jewish megacorp and spending the rest of it glued on a monitor having empty social interactions with other drones just to get some upvotes?

Your iphone is useless without the internet or a phone network. Theoretically you could connect it to something of a community-run meshnet or intranet, which would allow it to work within the confines of said community, but that would very much solve many of the societal ills that it creates.

What's the truth behind him being a Mk ultra experiment ?

He was an anarchic primitivist, which is not leftism.

he only bombed people to get attention for his manifesto

if it wasn't for his cuck brother he never would've been found since he was living off the grid in the 70's.

Are you saying he was Antifa?
Because then I automatically disagree with him without even reading his book.

Are you fucking retarded? Look up the definition of primitivist you fucking mong.

>Because then I automatically disagree with him without even reading his book
this makes you possibly the most retarded person in this thread. when the FUCK did Sup Forums become such a shithole? you're fucking retarded

Everyone should read the exchange of letters between the two.

He has a new book out call 'Anti-tech Revolution: Why and How' where he details and updates everything. He isn't finished, not by a longshot.

He's likely a new fag redditor who's Alt-right because he's seeking identity. I.E. he's a flaming homo who should get the fuck off the board.

What about it?

An Iphone takes the processing of glass. Metal finely crafted. Small electronics that need the technology of a machine to accurately create. The tools needed for those also need to be created. And the tools to make those also need to be created. The electricity also needs to be created to power it. It needs to be programmed.

Now tell me, what small community can do that?

Have you read them?

Israel has an average IQ in the 80s and kit kat is better

That's the point the primitivist is trying to make. Once you become dependent on products and technology that you cannot produce you become enslaved to that technology. And it also makes survival precarious because if the supply chain of that technology disappears you will die with it.

Is being one of the most promising mathematical geniuses of his generation a meme?

...

kek you're such a tool. this supposed """comfort""" kills you inside. look around you slave. everything is a lie, inverted truths. modern world is fucking hell and it's only going to get worse

No, give us a tl:dr

Not everyone lives like that you faggot.

Yes he admitted that the population would decrease, but is that a bad thing? We have reached the point where we are severely over crowded in all areas that can support a society.

As Ted said once you get rid of all books and documents on technology after a few generations none of the people would know of what it would be like and therefore not feel any want to go back, or discomfort in their life.

Humanity has an expiration date. If we don't reach other planets and learn terraforming there's a time limit on our existence.

I actually view Ted's manifesto as a warning to people that think that human history is one unbroken chain of progress. That kind of mindset makes them run headfirst into a dystopia.

Anybody watching this show?

he said some wise things, but he was just another edgy anarchist, open borders is not good for america

I think they give him a fair shake in the show.

Just read the book. He would hate antifa.

He said nothing about open borders. He actually talked about small tribes or communities. What they do with their community, he does not care.

youtu.be/t2Wg8uMJixo

But say we do do that, will humans still be enslaved or even more enslaved with no free will?

Is it better to live a short good life rather than a long hard life?

Just watched the last episode last night. I think it did a good job in not portraying him as either a misunderstood hero or a mentally ill monster like you would expect them to.

True he talks of leftist thinking as a movement as basically a mental illness that is brought on by over socialization and the need for the power process.

He went thru some psychological experiments at UC Berkeley that apparently changed him in a big way

Definitely worth reading, but sending package bombs to people is fucked up. He gets the idea that it's his job to fix an imperfect world, and he ends up doing bad things.

BTW one of his victimss, David Gertler, also writes some very interesting stuff. He survived and is tenured at the Yale Computer Science department. (Was untenured when he opened the package that blew up.)

He's a fucking scumbag, pretentious loser.

>muh doctorate

I know plenty of math PhD's who know they aint shit.

He just stole ideas from Jacques Ellul and collated them into a 'manifesto'. Fuck him and fuck you for being stupid enough to think he's some sort of hero.

faggot

many of us here have read it, including me, and found him to be correct in a lot of what he says in that Manifesto

overdosing on lsd against you will can do that to ya.

>then complains about the industrial revolution being the worst thing that ever happened
The main point he was trying to make was that technological advances put unforseen restraints on people as a modern civilization evolves around the technology. He also made a point about how leftists like to abuse the system by making more restraints within the technology outside reach of government as a mean of control.
These were the main reasons why he hated technology.

Kaczynski agrees with Pol-Pot on most things; both are homicidal maniacs...end of story

youtu.be/TA41P_N9Hv8

They seemingly promote his manifesto, and give a sanitized version of it that doesn't specifically attack leftists/marxists/jews. They portray the fbi as complete buffoons in every episode (except for the genius S.A.), it's a pretty red pilled show imo.

Stop posting

I found his analysis spot-on except I think he, maybe because of his obvious hyper individualistic slant, ignored the influence of group dynamics on the system, which skewered some of it. He talks about "the system" as if it were an end in itself, as if it were a thing in itself. He talks about how the system is alienating and it's interests diverge from the populace, as if it were an inhuman entity. But he also mentions that the system places the tools of control in increasingly fewer hands as the system grows. The system has therefore an increasingly emerging face, you could say. Whenever he talks about the system as an inhuman, antagonistic force I just can't help thinking how much more accurate his analysis would be if he brought in the question of ethnic conflict, particularly Jewish control of the system. The moments he goes on about the system as though it were some disembodied entity are the vaguest parts of his analysis. I just think he overlooked group dynamics because of his obviously hyper individualist mentality/philosophy. Other than that, it was good.

Wow, You've sure convinced me with those hot opinions.

Hell yeah he was right nigger.

>my air conditioning is killing me inside rarrghhh

>Does anyone have any arguments against his book except for low IQ squanders of trying to form an argument against it as shown above?
Not a refutation, but the entire question is whether or not technology benefits humans. Both sides have merits to their argument, even though Primitivism means basically no medicine and shorter life spans.

It depends on how you measure the value of living.

>missing the point

The guy's a fucking murderer

you all do understand that Ted was part of a CIA project that took Ivy league students, identified their core beliefs and destroyed them in private interview sessions. he was simply an experiment

I agree he was not sane. There was no logical connection between his actions (bombing university professors and airline executives) and his professed goals (the collapse of modern technological society in toto).

I feel like the only way to test his hypotheses (that suffering derives from the lack of meaningful pursuits in a technological world) would be to initiate a nuclear holocaust, which would in itself cause so much suffering as to be obviously nonsensical from a utilitarian perspective.

So I think it is a very interesting diagnosis of the ills of modern society, but I think there is nothing actionable in it.

Perhaps the most satisfied human would be one who grew up on an island gifted suffering saving technologies (antibiotics, etc.) but who was given these as if from God and who spent their time fighting for sustinence and survival. But it's not possible. And to try to go back is to increase suffering, which doesn't make sense for a program whose stated goal is to spare people the existential pain of living a life only chasing surrogate, phony goals.

>Was he right?
yes, he was 99% right. the only reason he was wrong was the whole "I must letterbomb people" thing. if his theory is true, and it is, then either a relentless series of natural disasters or nuclear war will reset the geologic clock again. the sun is only in middle age, enough time for another shot at sapience, or the creator can spin up another instance.

The big mistake in his manifesto is his belief about a heavy-handed bureaucratic state being necessary to technological society (basically capitalism). He doesn't defend this idea well (I think he says something about it being up to the reader to dihure it out), and it's simply not true. Technological society may not prevent that, and may even enable it in some sense, but doesn't require it or make it inevitable. If anything, that influence does a lot to slow technological and economic progress.

This is the central error of his thought. Without this mistake he'd probably have just a Libertarian. I suspect Webber's influence, although I don't recall Webber being cited (any works from sociologists will likely bring some derivative of Webber's ideas along).

Biggest problem the IR caused is family restructuring and removal of women from the material economy. It exiled dad and made mom into a child.

More and more do, every year.

Absolutely he was right. Technology isnt the gift to humanity we all think it is, rather a tool of enslavement.

Just wait until the machines can think for us, and the only people that need to exist are the ones in charge.

Read notes from underground and you may understand.

He's just an angry manlet who couldnt get laid in modern society so he wanted to change it.

The industrial revolution set people on the road of 40h+ work weeks, and cucking yourself for a wage. Henry "I fucking hate the jews" Ford notwithstanding, Kaczynski was right about mass production.

I think you are confusing him pointing out an evolutionary biological determinism, versus making an argument for some sort of cognitively designed or chosen path.

His point is that unforeseen pressures and disasters befall the human race as technology progresses because very strong evolutionary programs exist within out race that were extremely beneficial for other circumstances, which no longer exist, but yet we still have that programming going into a situation where it is the worst thing to have.

Lets start with racism, or at least the evolutionary mechanic of it within races. Your genomes are competing with another races genomes, so already a base incentive to see yours propagate, and that other races not. Now add the positive feedback loop of endemic disease to that. You, to protect your race, in one manner, have a bit of an odd bionome legacy that makes you want to put other races as a 'other', morality does not enter into it, this is just the reality of early man in the Euro Asiatic region.

Than look at the natives of north and central America where this bionome appears to have not been as prevalent. Greet Europeans, and have disease kill far more of their population over the next decades than all the natural disasters, famine, and war put together by a significant margin.

Uncle Ted's point is not about technology being good or bad. Uncle Ted's point is were are wired evolutionarily to be in an extremely dangerous place with its development, and in the rush to develop it, there is not enough reflection on the consequences it may, and most likely, will bring.

Other than he was blowing mother fuckers up? No. Not really. He will end up being correct about A LOT of what he wrote. Problem is you cant be blowing mother fuckers up.

>Does anyone have any arguments against his book except for low IQ squanders of trying to form an argument against it as shown above?

Read the John Zerzan correspondence with Kaczynski. Also read Zerzan's piece on the Ku Klux Klan. Or Zerzan's work about liberals, communists etc.

One point Zerzan makes is that "conservatives" are not conservative. Actually Zerzan would like to go back farther than Kaczynski - Kaczynski thinks modern technology was a mistake, Zerzan thinks the dawn of agriculture 10,000 years ago was a mistake.

The problem always pointed out with Zerzan and others arguments is you need farming to feed billions of people. To get back to pre-civilization, you'd need many people having only one child each for many generations. So most people's family would be their parents and their two first cousins.

Did you watch the Discovery series that just finished? Didn't realize how fucked he got by CIA, his lawyers, government.

he wasn't wrong

>He doesn't address nihilism
Seeing as he speaks of revolution being possible, I would assume he is not a nihilist. An organized bombing campaign spanning decades is also not very nihilist, imho.

Which comforts should I drop to reduce my psychological pain? He also said mass entertainment helped reduce civilizational stress.

How did you find it? I downloaded it but haven't read it. Technological Slavery I couldn't get out of my fucking head if I tried; not even happy I read it, in a way.

Many, many do.