Was he right?

Was he right?

It really bothers me he could be

Other urls found in this thread:

endchan.xyz/.media/a703df9d906a1a1e65d6b0bbc9503ca4-applicationpdf.pdf
unz.com/jman/zigzag-lightning/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

tech is toxic
escaping it to degrees works for certain people
was his "plan" right? no
he was mentally ill
very cutting critique of leftism
and a great gateway out of anarchism
for the anarcho primitivist, he's a redpill
for the alt right bro, he's just a license to act
like a faggot
because you go on hikes
and eat paleo
and get real angsty
evola was a fag too

Damn no wonder he turn into a serial killer, I would too if I was 5'2 manlet

Yes, although he didn't foresee the racial problems to the extent we have today.

Perhaps even he thought the West wasn't stupid enough to throw open their gates to third world immigration.

He was right about leftism and probably mostly right about the effects of technology too.

Just look at tinder, in the 80's you had to dial weird numbers in the back of porno magazines for 'hookups'. ow 17 year old normie girls are doing the exact same thing via an 'app'.

That sort of tech is fucking poisonous. Do you think the average 6/10 female deserves to have access to every Chad dick in a 100 mile radius?

Who is this? The unabomber? I haven't read his book but this guy sure had balls.

All his arguments are correct
It's just his conclusion is not something I agree with

he got some things right, some wrong obviously

That middle line is for 5'6" . Uncle Ted is about 6'.

He's not even 5'2"... It clearly goes 5'0" THEN 5'1" before 5'2" you fucking retard.

calm down subchimp, the reason isn't opening the gates but leveling the ME when you live far away.
The real cancer is the US and their closest allies catering to their military industrial complex you naive homo.
Also this is an 18+ board

Yes he was right.

He's the tallest person in this pic. Doesn't look like a manlet.

He did it to get attention to his cause. You have to read ''Industrial society and its future'' or he did it for nothing.

>his head is only an inch tall

Well he IS a brainlet

technology will always be a part of us, but if youre worrying about losing your individuality know this: you will always be human if you have something to disagree over

>in Harvard at 16 years of age
>brainlet
Pick one, dummie!

Nah but he makes great critiques on leftists and technology.

Not all heroes wear a cape.

>head is only an inch tall
>intelligent
Pick one, dipshit

Ted Kaczynski is right in just about everything except the actions he took that he thought were best for his ideology. If you read his manifesto it comes off as a scientific theory; that is, it models and can be used to predict society with fairly good accuracy. Any event that takes place in society can be described by something in his manifesto.

>was
Steve is still alive, and still right

wait...why did Ted autocorrect to Steve? wtf does that mean?

>Thinking that much space is 1 inch

I don't have a problem with technology per se. The problem is that I or anyone I would trust is not in charge of anything tech-related. Just like with transhumanism; people blindly trust that ''our'' benevolent megacorporations and governments would do things that benefits the People and not what benefits the corporations and their owners.

Those that are in charge have an incentive to make this bloody soon, that's the fucking issue.

He was wrong on a lot of things but right about leftists. He was totally wrong on tech. We can't ever get rid of it, we just need to use it more responsibly. He's also wrong on individualism. You can't exist as a totally isolated individual. It's not how our species works. Even Ted wasn't far from town and came into town regularly to benefit from society and technology.

yes
he is ahead of his time

able to analyze the situation unable to find a sound solution

reading his manefesto freaks me the fuck out. the fact that he wrote that in the early 90s is crazy. i also dont understand why someone that smart would do something like that. maybe he was too high iq and just lost his mind

There isn't one. Sorry. All the solutions are violent.

The product of a genius who developed paranoid schizophrenia later in life.

But how many of the problems of "technology" are actually just problems of (((social media))), or even (((media))) in general?

uncanny

I just couldnt imagine a world without technology. Where do we draw the line? Clohes? Torches? House? It seems like an arbitrary cut wherever you put it. I do agree there is something fucked about our trajectory and that it has to do with some of this tech. If you guys are interested he recently released another book somehow (from prison) that outlines how a revolution would look like. He analyzes succesful revolutions in history and draws the lessons from them.

A nuclear bomb is a much more pressing threat.

Unfortunately most other "anti-civ primitivists" are nigger-worshiping antifa faggots like John Zerzan and Derrick Jensen.

Nuclear bombs do not exist.
endchan.xyz/.media/a703df9d906a1a1e65d6b0bbc9503ca4-applicationpdf.pdf

I honestly thought that was Russel Crowe for a minute.

Ted was quite handsome (no homo) -- too bad the CIA fucked him up so badly when he was a kid

>maybe he was too high iq and just lost his mind
He was literally subjected to emotional torture by the CIA via the MK Ultra program when he was a teenager.

Just watch the Netflix on him if you're too lazy to even read his wiki.

Am i being subverted or is this a good read

We draw the line in agriculture. Metallurgy is fine. Permaculture crops, hunting, gathering and fishing is the Human way to live. Guns are still useful because everyone else has them too. Agriculture is really the main problem.

There won't be a ''primitivist'' revolution. 99,999% of people don't want it, they are comfortable with civilization. But once things go bad and the Earth will be systematically culled of it's excess population, it will be the primitivists (and the cullers) that survive.

>a genius who developed paranoid schizophrenia
An equally plausible description is:

"A genius who realized he had to do more than write, no matter how brilliantly - he had to act in defense of what he believed was right."

Can you imagine the type of shit he would have had to do these days to get an ounce of attention

>Complaining that other men are getting puss
>It's a problem because you don't like it
You could be using the same app to get the same girls but instead you choose to be a massive butthurt faggot. In your mind the only way to be the man you secretly want to be is to shape all of society to fit to you, which will never happen. Change yourself or continue to be a miserable sack of shit.

Agriculture? Because it creates to much interdependence?

he was mentally ill

Only about modern society, not the far future

>retards itt think based Ted is dead

He's still alive in jail

>You could be using the same app to get the same girls
No no no no we can't stop this meme cunt.

this made me laugh my ass off

I agree a lot of tech is harmful but there is no stopping progress. Plus tech like light and medicine/med tech are so useful. Why freeze things in 1280 when 1980 would get rid of most of the socially harmful tech except television

Measured as human pain experienced vs attention to idea, Ted did pretty damned well.

Destroying the white race would be an effective way to destroy civilization though.

unz.com/jman/zigzag-lightning/

Brainlet answer.

if he was right, then he was also right about murdering people
welcome to the jungle baby

That's one reason I guess. There are many reasons and I can't be arsed to come up with them because I've been 24 hours awake.

Humans didn't begin with agriculture because it was easier, more reliable or anything like that. Agriculture was harder, way more boring, destroyed the natural tribal community, created big hierarchies, but it had one advantage: it gave them a competetive advantage. A miserable agricultural society could produce more humans on a smaller plot of land than others, but just like in a war between orcs and hobbits, satisfaction in life is not what decided which would win. Agriculture orcified humans to sheeply drones.

What do you or your children have to offer to the God of Progress once automation makes you useless to the elite of the elite? Progress can't be stopped like you said, we can't freeze time to 1980. If we decide to want ''progress'', we will have to welcome the end-game of progress, which is 0,00001% controlling everything and final solutioning everyone else with superior technology away from bothering them.

Most of modern medicine would be useless in natural conditions. The primitive mindset also takes into consideration that which doesn't survive with technology, maybe didn't have the genes that should survive. Life should be bloody and dangerous, uncertain, exciting.

It's the age-old ethical dilemma of when is it acceptable to kill to protect others.