I was thinking to myself: Do you think Ted Kaczynski is aware how influential Industrial Society and Its Future has become? And how absolutely accurate his understanding of our technological enslavement is? It's quite amazing how prominent his manifesto became.
He may be in jail until death, but he and his ideas will forever be remembered.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
theanarchistlibrary.org
twitter.com
I haven't read all of his manifesto but I don't think his observations on the industrial society are correct. It's just another stepping stone towards a more automated society where most of our activity is in the service sector.
His wider observations on politics are much more interesting.
Never heard he was influential--why I love Sup Forums
Know he was unbelievably meticulous
Next thread on him I'll participate--have to study that Manifesto
>how influential Industrial Society and Its Future has become?
It's not very influential.
>It's quite amazing how prominent his manifesto became.
Not really, because it's not very prominent.
>his ideas will forever be remembered.
Most of the manifesto was not his own ideas and he freely admits this.
>I haven't read all of his manifesto but
It's like 30 pages you lazy fucking nazi. Read it before you offer your opinion on it.
I know. I just stumbled upon it a few years back.
Interesting but not interesting enough.
>Most of the manifesto was not his own ideas and he freely admits this.
Who does he give credit to?
Back to /leftypol/
Was that the dude who played Jim in the office?
Man, I like how they only show photos where he looks like a disheveled hobo.
Makes him easier to dismiss as a madmad, I guess.
They released some letters from him where people were asking him what he thought about facebook and youtube. Even though he had never used them, he pretty much pegged exactly what was going on with them.
>that tie
So sorry that facts trigger you, my location-hiding little friend. I'm fully in agreement with the ideas expressed in his manifesto but that doesn't mean I'm fooling myself into thinking that anyone outside of a very small group are familiar with them.
>Who does he give credit to?
Various writers on the subject of the dangers of technological progress. Jacques Ellul, Lewis Mumford, philosophers from Plato to Rousseau. The fact that OP has gotten so mad over someone pointing this out just tells me that he's a dilettante at best, and at worst someone who just read a few excerpts like the one you posted and decided that he now knows it all.
>not his own ideas
That's pretty much every work of philosophy ever. Truly new ideas are exceedingly rare and only crop up in people like Da Vinci or Kant. Everyone else just gets to rephrase and combine other peoples ideas in new ways.
I didn't mean he didn't originate the ideas, but that he flat out said, "These are not my ideas and my main purpose in writing this manifesto is to package these ideas in a short, easily accessible format so that average people who would never a serious philosophical treatment like Ellul's 'The Technological Society' can be exposed to them.", which is why it's foolish to say something like
>his ideas will forever be remembered.
Its a shame he wasn't born a few decades later. He was prime shitposter material and im sure he would've found some friends here.
I recommend watching this. Shits kino.
In 2013, Fox' K. Ablow wrote an article titled 'Was the Unabomber Correct?'
You can Google a bunch of other articles from mainstream media organizations, weighing the ideas of Kaczynski.
Now, you've already exposed yourself as an intellectual dullard. You fail to understand how ideas work under the surface of civilization. How, in time, ideas come to take a hold of a people. How, through the unconscious, ideas become manifest. Kaczynski's ideas are beginning to bubble up to the surface.
You're a superficial thinker, so I understand why you're bubbling on my post.
Let me offer a quote by Le Bon:
"The only important changes whence the renewal of civilisations results, affect ideas, conceptions, and beliefs. The memorable events of history are the visible effects of the invisible changes of human thought."
You're a person who deals with the surface - the manifestation of ideas. You don't understand how ideas work under the surface until they manifest themselves. Again, very superficial thinker.
Sad.
you think he would like Sup Forums?
he literally called conservatives fools and called Anarchists to take up arms against neo nazis and the klan
most of Sup Forums are just racist bootlickers who snitch to the cops, he fucking hated cops and snitches
In addition, you haven't a clue on originality. Originality is a new interpretation of knowledge already available. Plato could have written in his dialogues, "The ideas contained in this dialogue are not my own, as they belong to the Pythagoreans." He didn't though, because his conception of the soul, for instance, was far different than that of the Pythagoreans. So, Plato and the Pythagoreans both philosophized about the soul, but that does not mean that Plato's ideas were no original. Likewise, simply because other writers have written on the corrosive effect on technology and the industrial revolution does not mean he did not contribute something unique and original on the subject.
Again, very superficial thinking, which is quite sad. You represent the American flag very well.
Sad.
Joke: A specter is haunting Europe
Broke: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal
Woke: The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race
Maybe not Sup Forums specifically. He certainly shared more than a few similarities with /r9k/ according to the descriptions of his early years.
If I can go to a Halloween party in Brooklyn and have a conversation about how ol' Ted is right with a Chinese piano teacher then it's safe to say the ideas he's brought up are seeping into the mainstream.
t. guy who has done exactly that
He called conservatives fools, because the "conservatives" today believe that technological advancement and tradition can be maintained simultaneously. They cannot. You're confused, though. You're thinking of Republican "conservatism," which isn't conservatism or traditionalism.
If you're interested in true conservatism - which is closer to anarchy than liberalism, as conservatives espouse decentralization and localism - read Robert Nisbet's 'The Sociological Tradition.'
im actually surprised that he's popular here, this guy was obliviously affiliated with an antifa like ideology.
>trying this hard
Holy shit, we got a real, live pseudo-intellectual over here. user, anyone with access to google can find hundreds of articles discussing virtually any idea that exists. If I cared, I could spend a few minutes searching and find you an overwhelming amount of articles "from mainstream media organizations" extolling the virtues of technology.
If you wanted to prove your point you'd offer real world evidence of his ideas affecting culture, not articles from people discussing them, because people discuss fucking everything. But anyone with even the slightest familiarity with our society can easy see that both technological progress and technology's control over our lives has only continued its rapid acceleration since his manifesto was published. You're a fool if you think that his ideas are known by anyone but a very small group, most of whom were familiar with the ideas long before Kaczynski repackaged them. Even on a fringe site like Sup Forums, most people aren't familiar with anything past his comments on leftists.
That flag is cute, though. Afraid no one will take you seriously if they know you're from Brazil? You're right.
the man was an actual genius. he saw it coming miles away. then again, it could have just been a psyop. if not, he should be pardoned on the grounds of being completely right about everything
People in high places know and understand Ted Kaczynski. In addition, more and more people are beginning to understand the corrosive effects of technology through its alienating, degenerative effects. All the time people say, "Facebook is a problem. Cells phones are consuming our lives. We watch too much TV. We don't go outside anymore. The cities are too crowded." People are aware.
i find it hard that they espouse the end of the american nation state and capitalism [the economy] as ted did. the guy was an obvious anarchist.
>Smashing up McDonald’s or Starbuck’s is pointless. Not that I give a damn about McDonald’s or Starbuck’s. I don’t care whether anyone smashes them up or not. But that is not a revolutionary activity. Even if every fast-food chain in the world were wiped out the techno-industrial system would suffer only minimal harm as a result, since it could easily survive without fast-food chains. When you attack McDonald’s or Starbuck’s, you are not hitting where it hurts.
theanarchistlibrary.org
"Marxism will never take hold in Russia," a man said in 1900. There is no indication that the people are in a revolutionary mood. You haven't a clue how ideas work.
Back to /leftypol/
Well, conservatives were anarchist in the sense that they wanted the family, the Church, the community to govern, not the State.
Moreover, real conservatives hated capitalism. In fact, socialists were more open to capitalism than conservatives, because capitalism is just a necessary stage in the progression toward communism.
I'm pretty sure Kaczynski would object to the manifesto being referred to as "his ideas". Here's a direct quote:
>"The Manifesto was never intended to be original. Its purpose was to set forth certain points about modern technology in clear and relatively brief form, so that those points could be read and understood by people who would never work their way through a difficult text such as Jacques Ellul's 'Technological Society'."
And I don't want to ruin that veneer of intellectualism or anything, but I've got some news for you: you are one of those people who aren't capable of addressing these ideas as put forth by the actual philosophers Kaczynski is repackaging. Or are you telling me you've read Ellul and Mumford? If so, why wouldn't you start a thread about their ideas by mentioning them instead of picking a polarizing figure like Kaczynski, whose history will only serve to distract people from discussion of the topic at hand?
I'll tell you why: because you're a brainlet who can't handle reading anything longer than a 30 page manifesto and who thinks he has a firm grasp on the topics discussed in it after doing so.
I've read portions of Ellul's Propaganda. On a plane to Scotland.
To be quite honest, I was much more impressed by Kaczynski than Ellul.
Quality over quantity. But you're one of those democratic folks who emphasize quantity.
the last remark is true. socialism is a soft kind of capitalism.
Mathematicians are rarely wrong..
He was definitely ahead of his time, too bad he became a terrorist.
>how ideas work under the surface of civilization. How, in time, ideas come to take a hold of a people. How, through the unconscious, ideas become manifest.
You have hit on a principle also again unfolding in our time that very ancient men understood and wrote about.
The advent of anons, P2P news, alternative news, are the avenues that bubble new ideas to the surface.
This is it all going on again now, and even we who are in the middle of it fail to see it for what it is worth.
But we have found what the ancients have to say about it and us. From the other day, here:
So that's a no, you can't handle reading anything more complicated than Kaczynski's CliffsNotes version. That's about what I figured.
Keep hiding that flag, keep being a brainlet, but maybe try reading something a bit more challenging before you make this thread again and maybe you'll be able to write a OP without so much misplaced hero worship. If you actually had any real interest in or cared about spreading these ideas, you'd realize that there is nothing but negatives to be gained from promoting them as attached to a domestic terrorist.
It wasn't a revolutionary theory, scifi had been writing about it before he was born
You've already exposed yourself as an intellectual dullard - a superficial thinker who cannot seek beyond the surface. Such is the condition of the modern, democratic mind. Very sad. I feel bad for Americas. You're a terrible representative.
>talking about other nations while being too ashamed to show your own
>ur didnt read ellul
>ur brainlet cuz i read dis book by ellul
>kaczynski bad b/c idea is bad
>ur need cliff notes
Fuck off, faggot.
He was a genius, shouldn't have got caught.
The real dialectic is secular globalist materialism vs. the reactionary/natsoc right
wow really compelling argument
"no hurr"
wow you're really intelligent and have well thought out opinions, tell us more.
Guy is BEYOND intelligent.
Is living like a luddite more fulfilling than living in modern society?
Would we be happier in small scale villages tilling fields and raising livestock?
See, it's not so hard!
If you had been paying any attention, you'd see that the only criticism I ever made of Kaczynski is that it's not accurate to refer to his manifesto as "his ideas", in the sense of "he will forever be remembered because of his ideas". Pretty sure I flat out said that I completely agree with him, but his actions make him a poor representative of his ideas. There's absolutely no reason to use a domestic terrorist as a representative of a Luddite stance when there are plenty of respectable people, including those who Kaczynski openly admitted to getting his ideas from, who can be used as conversation starters.
Surely you realize they do this on purpose? They take a person who's committed some heinous crime and allow their manifesto (containing reasonable ideas which are harmful to the system) to be published. The average person reads these ideas and while they might have agreed with them had they come from a different source, their connection with the actions of the author causes this person to instead think, "Well, I must be mistaken" or "I don't want to hold the same ideas as someone who would do such a terrible thing". Dylan Roof's manifesto is another good example of this.
I criticize your superficial study of this subject because when the only relevant thinker you're familiar with is a person who mailed bombs to innocent people then your inevitable mention of him during discussion of his ideas gives people a ready made excuse to ignore both you and the ideas you're attempting to discuss. Again, there's no reason to attach Kaczynski to these discussions.
It's nice that you read his manifesto and were exposed to these ideas which you would obviously have never encountered otherwise - that was, after all, the entire point of the manifesto. But now that you've been exposed to them, if you really care to encourage their spread, you have the responsibility to gain a deeper understanding than what you can get from 30 pages.
False dichotomy.
I'm always amazed how stupid people latch onto the ideas of serial killers and failures just to make themselves stand out more.
tl;dr
So much this.
People have a tough time depersonalizing ideas. Look at the ideas on their own.
I'm not so much into primitivism as I am his critique of modern conservatism. Again, conservatism and capitalism are not compatible. For this reason, I've become more anti-capitalist and more open to other economic modes. Secondly, his analysis of this liberal mind is spot-on. I mean just check out this fucking retard (). Fits Ted's definition perfectly.
Ted believes there is no middle ground.
I've read nothing of what you or anyone else in the thread has wrote but I can smell how much of a pretentious faggot you are from all the namedropping
I have looked at his ideas on their own. They're stupid. Try thinking for yourself instead of parroting the worldviews of other people.
Nobody knows who the fuck those people are. This is a Sup Forums thread, its meant to draw an audience.
What this user said
>durr Ellul and Mumford. What a pretentious faggot
kys you little bitch
lol, this guys saying to read some manifesto written by a murderer, complimenting his writing hahahaha, this dude should be in jail along with him
>tl;dr
Bunch of faggots in this thread who think they're smart and different because they agree with the UNABOMBER and want to give big daddy Teddy a blowjob.
b8
Shit, sorry, I forgot that you only have an attention span long enough for the CliffsNotes version. Here goes:
When you use Kaczynski as the front man for discussions of technology, you give people an excuse to ignore both you and your ideas because they will zero in on his murder of innocent people and refuse to consider anything past that point.
It's pretty sad that we've reached the point where people consider it a negative to be familiar with the names of philosophers. Fuck those people who take steps to educate themselves, amirite?
>Liberalism stems from low self esteem.
I agree with him on this.
lol, he was a murderer, why would I want to read anything that a murderer wrote, are you people RETARDED?
It's no joke. This is literally how the average person will respond if you try to talk to them about about "Ted Kaczynski's manifesto" and the reason why anyone who is serious about these ideas needs to learn enough about them to be able to discuss them without referencing the fucking Unabomber.
See second paragraph .
I don't believe in everything Ted had to say. I simply believe his ideas are worth entertaining. He certainly had something to say.
Oh, have you developed your own unique worldview? And how did you come up with that worldview? By your own genius? Have you not been influenced by the worldview of the family or culture into which you were born? Or your religion or lack thereof? Perhaps you were influenced by a book you read?
Or you're just beyond all that? You're such a free thinker that your unique worldview has no referent? Interesting.
Smug lib-shit.
>Stalin instituted murderous purges against political opponents and he his a thoroughly read political writer - from academia to the poverty stricken. Not an argument.
>math prodigy
>went to Harvard at 16
>Doctorate
>taught at Berkeley
>predicted the technological bondage of modern society
>called out multiculturalism, social decay decades before Sup Forums was even imagined
>loser
Dude's accomplished more from a shack innawoods than you will for the rest of your life, user.
This guy is right. I'v read "La Technique ou l'Enjeu du siècle" and "Le bluff technologie" written by Ellul and it's clear Kaczynski got a lot of his ideas from him. Even though he is quite repetitive and difficult to read it's an eye-opener.
I don't believe in guilt by association.
>Ted murdered people!
>Those ideas must be bad!
Plus, liberals are genuine aren't genuine about that line of argumentation anyway. If they were, they'd have to avoid their religious ideology, namely liberals - as liberalism was founded on the bodies of those who were slaughtered in the French Revolution and Bolshevik Revolution.
Ted is basically black bloc and antifa. He hated protests but was definitely for anarchy. Both slow the progress towards our own demise but there's definitely a better way.
Holy shit nigger you are clearly a redditard, try and blend in a little better if you want anyone to read your shit
Ancient Greece never existed. All fake ruins and artifacts. All part of the stage reality mythos. Geometry and Astronomy came from the Muslims.
I've never disagreed with that.
Friendly reminder that Ted successfully published a book from prison in August 2016 on how to start an anti-technology revolution citing ample, relevant historical examples.
>liberals are genuine aren't genuine
lol, this is the mother fucker that's trying to argue for ted's message, can't even type a damn sentence properly
Tasty.
>Smug lib-shit.
>everyone who disagrees with me is a leftist!
And in the same post you're telling someone else that their comment is not an argument? user, baby, look in the mirror. You've been randomly calling me a leftist all thread even though I've repeatedly and openly professed my support not only for the ideas in Kaczynski's manifesto but for those in Dylan Roof's manifesto as well. It "lol ur leftist" just your kneejerks response any time someone confronts you? Do you call your mom a leftist when she tells you that you need to clean your room?
>I don't believe in guilt by association.
I see the point's going right over your head again. It's not about what you believe and it's not about fucking liberals jesus christ get your head out of your ass and quit with your little persecution complex. Nobody wants to appear to be publicly supporting a domestic terrorist regardless of their political affiliation. If you think that people on the right won't ignore Ted's ideas because of his actions in the same way that people on the left will then you're a fool.
ALL people, left right and middle, will shy away from appearing to agree or even seriously consider the ideas of a person who mailed bombs to innocent people and, again, none of these ideas belong to Kaczynski and there's no reason to mention him in discussion of them.
Either you believe in these ideas and want to see them spread or you're an edgy child who just wants an excuse to publicly praise a domestic terrorist. Which is it?
I'm not really arguing for Ted's message. I'm more so arguing that he's grown in influence.
I've been here since 2006 and calling a redditor anyone who formats their posts in a way you don't like or writes anything longer than your attention span can handle got boring years ago. I really don't care what websites you think I frequent so please don't interrupt while the adults are talking.
>you lazy fucking nazi
Your tricks ain't working here.
Translation: I just arrived here from r/politics, and I'm here to derail all threads with which I disagree. I mean, you certainly accomplished your goal, smug lib-shit.
Yeah, ok, I get it: /newpol/ is not a place for debate. We're here to circlejerk over the same threads posted over and over and even people who agree with the majority of what we're saying but disagree with the way we're saying it are just leftist plants from reddit.
You know, you guys are really starting to remind me of the actual leftists. I've had discussions with some friends on the far-left and their response to criticism of their positions, even when that criticism is literally nothing more than saying, "Hey, I think your position is reasonable but the way you're trying to promote it is counterproductive" is enough for them to flip and start calling me a fascist. In a similar tone, simply telling you, "Hey, the ideas in Kaczynski's manifesto are great but if you want them to spread you need to stop associating them with him" is enough to set off your little snowflake persecution radar and make you start calling everyone a leftist reddit subversive.
It's unfortunate. Sup Forums used to be a place where you could at least occasionally have real, substantive discussions but I guess those days really are over. Not sure if electing Trump was worth ruining the board.
>you lazy fucking nazi
>wants to pretend to have a substantive conversation, while being a smug lib-shit.
I'm waiting for you to start name dropping authors again, dude. Come on.
Sup Forums is a fucking Hivemind echo-chamber. Get the fuck out of here, shit-lib Redditor
This thread had the potential for concise points and varying insights that would help us as a collective better understand each other, and the world. And like all threads on Sup Forums, it devolved into a shit-flinging contest. Never change, fellas.