Unabomber and his manifesto

I find myself at a crossroads here.

I really liked this guys manifesto as he somhow nailed what the left would look like nowadays (as masochistic hypocrites) and its easy to tell that his mathematical skills are that of a genius.

But on the other hand I cant support his actions because it has delegitimised his views to the general public, although the study is very intelligent and really worth a read (or listen if using an audiobook).

I cant ever recommend his works to anyone because the first response I ever get is "you support killing people" and then the conversation derails.

Is "industrial society and its future" worth descussing in philisophical circles?

Whats your opinion Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/154963372/#q154963372
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Harvard_College
twitter.com/AnonBabble

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl9DgAM2zSk

That was the audiobook in case you were wondering

I'll give this a bump for potential

I had allmost given up hope

I'm not sure what you want to talk about OP. You feel conflicted about the man because of his actions, or you are annoyed that other people can't see past it? Do you want to discuss his thoughts or how to 'use' them to 'redpill' your friends? You should probably dial back the memes a little bit. There's really no need to larp as DEUS VULT and inflict teddy on your friends.

Unibomber is totally recommendable. It's not like mein Kampf.

I always ride alone to spend quality time with Mr.Hitler .

>first response I ever get is "you support killing people"

Ted's views are certainly not for the general plebians. Knowing what he did requires an open mind of an above average intelligence to begin to read his writings. I agree that his description of the leftwingers is spot on. I think choosing whom to discuss this stuff with is key. Personally I don't think his actions in anyway delegitimizes his writings. People need to understand his mind was fucked with in MKULTRA experiments. I actually feel sympathy for him. A brilliant mind now going to waste.

Hurr durr he killed people.
Fuck off, Ted did Nothing Wrong.

It was just a flag, didn't even notice that :I

>first response I ever get is "you support killing people"

Kinda dumb m8. Read and discuss the paper on its own merit. It is full of insight.
If your m8s are too close minded to read it then that usually means that either they don't trust your judgement or that they are just too dumb.

His actions were essential to for him to draw any sort of exposure to his manifesto.

He could have published a Kaczinsky PhD and absolutely no one would have cared. His manifesto would have been seen as academic philosophical/political masturbation, which is totally unactionable.

He carried out bombings to get the manifesto published and draw attention to it. The words of a "lunatic" hyped up by the media gain infinitely more traction than those of a Berkeley math professor.

Ted was a political terrorist in the truest since of the word.

Take a peak at how most of Silicon Valley lives, not what they say, and you'll see Ole Ted was on to something. Schools with more money than God, but no computers in them. They push out product for others to use.

There are other books you can recommend:
The Technological Society by Ellul
Against His-Story, Against Leviathan by Fredy Perlman
Against Domestication by Jacques Camatte
Elements of Refusal by John Zerzan
I personally recommend Against Leviathan as it is a history of civilisation largely in the form of myth. It is quite poetic and fits better than a science-based critique of technology.
Camatte's critique of the Left also digs much deeper than the psychological fallacies that you find in ISAIF. Building a psychological profile and acting as if all of the Left conforms to that is a major weakness in the argument, and ironically it's a form of technological thinking that has entered the mind.

i agree with this thread but also, it shows what a total faggot you have to be to go on a killing spree with political ties to it. It hurts your own ideology so badly.

Like if you believe in X, then kill a bunch of random people, it gives so much fuel to the people who are against X. You are literally retarded to go kill people in the name of X.

That's why Muslims are obsessed with killing sprees, they aren't smart enough to see how it hurts their own cause.

Also, it shows why the left wing FBI/CIA covered up Paddock's motive. It was obviously an anti-Trump killing spree but the FBI saw it was for the "greater good" (leftist authoritarian thinking) to cover up his Democrat or Muslim ideas.

He did nail it in some (mind you, some, not all) aspects of the modern day left, but he wasn't the first one to do so.

Anyway, while his "diagnosis" may have been somehow accurate, the "antidote" that he chose to administer was beyond fucked up.

>He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster.
Rings a bell? That's what happened here. Shame too, because he's obviously a very smart guy.

I don't support killing people in general, but even more so innocent people. And while you could argue (and I know that at least some of you would, because we've had similar threads about Breivik over the years and it's pretty much the same shit, isn't it?) that the university professors were accountable for social engineering the youth towards what he perceived to be the destruction of traditional values etc., why would you target some random fucking nerd working his ass off at a computer store?

And even with all of them university professors, what sort of autistic logic is that? You can't kill a thought or an idea, there's always going to be a clash of ideals because that's how the world is, we'll always argue about stuff because we're humans. And very similar ideologies pop up in different cycles all the time, just under different guises.

With each person that he killed, he created a martyr for the ideology that he was trying to resist. In other words, he helped his own enemies. Hopefully at least some of you can see this?

Killing is wrong desu. And I love it how whenever someone like that hates da gubbamint with a burning passion they'll still always target the civilians, because that's easier.

What he did was wrong, IMHO. We're humans, not beasts. And it's good to remind yourself of that every now and then and ponder on what separates us from animals.

>Is it worth discussing in philosophical circles?
Everything is worth discussing, that's why we have brains. If someone can't handle it, they need to man the fuck up.

>Ted was a political terrorist in the truest since of the word

yeah sure, as if the care packages had nothing to do with Ted being an MK Ultra victim.

If you are focusing on his criticism of the left you are missing the point entirely. He is also critical of conservatives.

The point he is making is about modern society as a whole, and he is largely correct though there is nothing he or anyone could do to stop what is happening.

Have a bump my friend.
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/154963372/#q154963372

>I love it how whenever someone like that hates da gubbamint with a burning passion they'll still always target the civilians, because that's easier.
SRSLY
>mad at the CIA for brainwashing and fucking with your mind in 1958 and 1959 in Harvard?
Bomb the CIA
Bomb Harvard
Why are you bombing
>some random fucking nerd working his ass off at a computer store?

>or some random lobbyist for the lumber industry
OH GOOD JOB TEDDY BOY
THAT WILL PROTECT THE FORESTS
NOW ALL THE EVIL CORPORATIONS WILL STOP CUTTING DOWN TREES

...but yes, his Manifesto is a masterpiece.
He was a prophet
Everything he wrote has come to pass or will soon
Prepare your anus

>Whats your opinion Sup Forums?
industrial society and its future is a brilliant document, although i wish i hadnt read it.
i think he hit several nails right on the head. his analysis of leftists and the behavior of oversocialized people is spot on. i like his take on the power process and surrogate activities, though i think he's a bit narrowminded when it comes to the range of possible motivation for humans actions. his analysis of scientists self-reported motivations, on the other hand, is spot on - being in academia is like being in the weirdest church ever. they attribute to themselves the greatest virtues - they are the noble, curious benefactor of society, all applied science is just a side-effect of their curiosity. also the notion that humans do not control technology goes largely unconsidered in the academic sphere, atleast by the ivory tower types. kaczynski thoroughly BTFO's these people in sections 87-92 imo.
i really like his take on technology being an uncontrollable force and how the adaption to new technologies are in principle optional but practically inevitable, but some of his examples are bad (the car example etc).
the part about the utopian notion of separating good parts of technology from bad part, and how technology and science is perpetually generating new, more complex problems by solving simpler problems, is also spot on, and as far as i can tell is not widely considered within discussions of research ethics in the STEM fields today.
when he gets to revolution vs reform he gets into black-and-white mode and i think the scope of possible routes of action is underexplored.

>Personally I don't think his actions in anyway delegitimizes his writings.
well, it does. i have tried to get colleagues to read the document and they won't even consider his ideas because of this. the elites of the system were going to ignore his document anyway, but for them his violent acts are a perfect excuse to do so lazily

watch the documentary "das netz"
you can't really hold what he did against him
he has his mind experimented on and completely fucked up.
the fact that he remained as coherent as he did is a testament to the power of his mind because they really fucked him up.

The fact he was so young when it happened as well was something that assured he would be permanently scarred

So what do you want to talk about? You can always point out how their favorite enlightenment and marxist thinkers were all revolutionaries whose minions indulged in the most barbaric of slaughter. This was all a glorious payback for all the oppression of course.

I don't care that he killed people. I care that he is basically an anti-progress Luddite. I enjoyed his critiques of the left, but his view that everyone who doesn't live in a shack and hunt their own meat and heat themselves with lumber they chopped down themselves is a slave loser, is messed up. He hates capitalism, and he hates technology. I just hate leftists, so not much love for Ted from me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I think I read that book in 2010, so it's been quite a while.

First i do not agree to anything within the commie manifesto written by marx.
unlike Ted karl was clearly mathmatically flawed and also he was unable to take human nature into acount.
it really is quite uncanny how opposite they are when it comes to philosophys and lifestyles

He was always an oddball. The idea that the MKultra shit made him unhinged is bullshit. He was sick as an infant, had to spend an extended period in an incubator, and was a fucking weirdo ever since who failed to hold eye contact with his mother.

He was an anarcho-primitivist if I remember correctly.
Which is basically conservatism to its most extreme degree

Im not saying that is all that it took to take him out, but it was a major straw on the camels back so to say.
Not one thing caused him to do those things, just thousands of little things and a few big things

Well I'm a conservative and find the 'system' of anarchy to be completely bat-shit insane, untenable, and evil. I may hate the government but I'm under no illusions that we can live, at least in any decent way, without one.

>citations required

Sure but he was real fucking messed up even before that. The story isn't
>well-balanced child prodigy gets brainfucked by bioluminescent basketball americans and goes nuts
the man was always a nutter

{{{anarchy}}} is just a red herring to promote infighting between the people who would otherwise be united in vying for their own liberty.

In college I studied neuroscience at a Jesuit university (you wanna talk about mind control....jesus...but the jesuits are a different subject). My parents are also doctors in the research world at the Mayo Clinic, so I've spent my share of time around scientists, and I agree with you 100%.

There is a certain refusal to acknowledge the moral consequences of modern biological experimentation that permeates academic science today, and I'm sure it's the same way in private industry. For example, during college I learned the patch clamp technique; and the TLDR on patch clamping is you take a live mammal's brain, slice it up so fast that it retains all its functional connections, then probe it with electrodes and pharmaceutical agents to measure the electrical activity and ion channels in neurons in various brain regions. Literally necromancy. So I'm very concerned with where science is going, and how fast.

Yeah you are a conservative, but its not as hard right as you can go.
I never got why the "alt right" or "natzis" were ever considered "right wing" when their pollitical goals were clearly left wing.

If i was to refference anyone from the real "hard right" i would go with the puritans in the UK or the An-prims that think people were far better in the past (far past)

So was he actually a subject of the LSD studies? Or non pharmaceutical experimentation? I cant seem to find a straight answer on this.

watch the documentary
it's all in there.

>The idea that the MKultra shit made him unhinged is bullshit
You're a fucking idiot

>Subjects were told they would be debating personal philosophy with a fellow student, and were asked to write essays detailing their personal beliefs and aspirations.

>The essays were turned over to an anonymous attorney, who in a later session would confront and belittle the subject – making "vehement, sweeping, and personally abusive" attacks – using the content of the essays as ammunition, while electrodes monitored the subject's physiological reactions. These encounters were filmed, and subjects' expressions of rage were later played back to them repeatedly.[19]

>The experiment ultimately lasted three years, with someone verbally abusing and humiliating Kaczynski each week.[20][21]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Harvard_College

I'm going to loick you in a room and scream at you every week for three years while playing back a movie on a wall-sized screen of you freaking the fuck out

Let's see how you do.

If he didn't kill people, you would have never read his work

Manhunt: Unibomber
Netflix
Discovery Channel
Episode 6
BEST PORTRAYAL OF MK ULTRA TECHNIQUE I HAVE EVER SEEN

>There is a certain refusal to acknowledge the moral consequences of modern biological experimentation
yes, that is i guess the prime example these days, but as biology is not my field i don't know much about it.
i know within chemical and pharmaceutical research there is generated a vast amount of new chemical species with unknown properties and bioactivities, and while we generally have good waste management we don't really know what happens to these compounds (btw due to regulations and bureaucracy a lot of researches just dilutes their waste with acetone and dump it so as to not to be bothered by HSE people). i don't know the exact number of drugs that make it to the market but i think i'm generous if i say 0.5% of new drug projects make it to the market. the amount of waste generated in the lead optimization stage in such a project is immense and the end result is maybe a drug with incremental improvements over the market standard. i think this is a trend that will continue, science will use more and more resources while accumulating more and more waste for minor incremental progress.
but most of my colleagues are not concerned with these things - we'll fix these problems when they arise (aka separate the bad tech from the good tech in kaczynskis terminology)

>what do you want to talk about?
Do you understand this question? What is the purpose of this thread? Do you care about ted and how he was fucked up by the CIA? Or do you want to talk about his ideas about technology and leftism?