Can we talk about the Unabomber please? I read his manifesto, it was intelligent...

Can we talk about the Unabomber please? I read his manifesto, it was intelligent, well prepared and pointed out political problems that were unseen at his time. WHY DID HE CHOOSE TO BLOW SHIT UP?? He could have fought ideologically and probably prevented some of the leftism outbreak in America.

bump

because we have no leader, just kike plants and subverting spies

He could have been the leader at least in academia

>read the manifesto
>doesn't know the man's life
user, come back when you're ready to go the whole 9 yards.

>WHY DID HE CHOOSE TO BLOW SHIT UP??
pnly way to get real attention. no 1 wouldve read his warnings otherwise

well what am I missing?

At that time at least

Had he waited til YouTube he'd be an American Jordan Peterson on steroids

Can I be the leader

Because he was a huge faggot that didnt see technology is like rokos basilisk. That you are now aware of too, faggots.

>sick as an infant
>put in incubator
>catches the autism, doesn't make eye contact
>grows up a genius
>gets MKULTRA'd
very interesting character

>Had he waited til YouTube he'd be an American Jordan Peterson on steroids
In other words, Ted's efforts were in vain.

I, for one, usher in the creation of our new AI overlords

You usher it in?

Do you really know nothing about Ted?

Anyone that justifies their ideology with killing and murder ends up going down.

Because the CIA fucked with his brain

>WHY DID HE CHOOSE TO BLOW SHIT UP??
did you even read it?
fighting ideologically would further the socialization of people. just on a different pollitical spectrum.
you all think you're redpilled?
you just repeat everything you read here.
Come with deductive proofs for your claims and come up with your own opinions.

>why
it says so right in the manifesto
He did it so it would get attention and people would read it
it worked, you read it

His solution is no good, we need to escape the planet and the solar system and solve entropy. Human existance is pointless unless it continues existing forever

I think Ted was correct in everything. He just didn't give a viable alternative. To force a primitivist world, you ironically would need superior technology to others.

Technological advancement is an inevitable nightmare we have to confront. The group that gets the upper-hand in power in technology should try to eliminate others, that's the only winning strategy in the long run. You can't count on always being more technologically advanced than others, and if you aren't, you will be under other's control.

Unless they win the war.

bump