What does pol think of this guy? Have you read his manifesto?

What does pol think of this guy? Have you read his manifesto?

Attached: Theodore_Kaczynski.jpg (555x414, 139K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=CCd6qisIFKo
youtube.com/watch?v=QAGxy85R380
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>5'5"

lol manlet

Any true Sup Forumsack knows that Uncle Ted did absolutely NOTHING wrong.

one man a mail bomb and the skizo american press and it's the second holocaust.

first part of it. don't think though a technological revolution is the proper way to go. but we need to focus on using technology for our benefit, rather than becoming technologies' slave.
has some good insight on leftist ideology.

anprim is retarded. yes we need to counter the dysgenic effects of living in a civilisation, but reseting human progress to nothing seems so silly.

Wack job who killed people because he wanted to be remembered. Should've stuck to maths and not socio-cultural quasi-intellectual luddite bullshit.

instead of staying in his cabin he wanted to impose his backward way of life on everyone. said a few interesting points about the psychology of liberals, but other than that, zilch

The whole point of his manifesto was that technology benefits humanity at the cost of freedom. And that there is no way to avoid that cost, so he claims that a technological counterrevolution must occur in order to preserve freedom.

Yes, very enlightening read. His analysis of leftists is spot on and I somewhat agree with his views on modern society.

How would you propose we counter the slow infringement of technology upon freedom as outlined in the manifesto, without resorting to violent acts like Ted did? One of the most important things he made me realize is that violence is not only justifiable but sometimes entirely necessary.

he was a fucking genius

He was right

Attached: 1521632850657.webm (360x360, 2.91M)

I downloaded it, read the headlines and watched the Unabomber series on Netflix. I disagree with his methods of bombings but he may have been right on several issues same as any other nut job who goes to drastic measures for attention, he was ultimately an asshole.

i guess you would need assert authority in a way (through violence, correct). my disagreement is putting human progress back to the stone age.

allow people to live self sufficiently, limit automation to menial jobs. no AI systems running anything dangerous.

i don't think we are free to begin with, so i think it's proper to give up more freedom for some benefit.

well for one thing, i see technology as neutral, and i see humans reason to use technology for his advantage as whats amiss, and it is this reason, which is constantly manipulated. (maybe this manipulation is sth we would have to fight against, and not technology. We could use technology as well to counter this manipulation, but most people decide to use it for another purpose.

I'm confused as to how you don't believe you are free. You are free to end your life. That is one of the ultimate freedoms that God gave us. How is that not free enough for you?

I think he started seeing how tech is used and the made a mistake assuming tech enables totalitarian state. When what's clear is that US was a totalitarian state to begin with that messed up with tech and some of the population brainwashing became visible. You can see now what was invisible before, and the state pretends it's one off or not typical, or a mess up. It's not. US has always been like it is now if not worse.

One obvious example is the US court system. It was reformed in Europe after Napoleon forced codified law. Why? Because in the US system, the judge can do whatever the judge wants. If you think it's only the potential for corruption, you are wrong. The default behavior of this is massive corruption. In 19th century Europe people were fed up. In the US, the story is we have the best justice system in the world, and everyone believes in.

You obviously didn't read his manifesto. He was trying to save humanity.

I agree that full anarchoprimitivism is a pipe dream that isn't really desirable, but then again the conditions he identifies as oppressive to the human spirit are inherit to 18th century industrialization and not just hypothetical future mumbo jumbo like AI. Overpopulation, slave-like work conditions, and so on would need a full-scale luddite revolt to countermand, which is just ridiculously improbable with the current zeitgeist. Ted recommends local networking with like-minded individuals to slowly facilitate greater cultural strife, and other activities that will bring about desirable conditions for a revolution to take place. Once shit gets hot, the best things one can do are acts of sabotage against things like electrical grids, power plants, etc.
retard detected
The problem doesn't necessarily lie with the US, these conditions are inherit in any sufficiently advanced society that concentrates power at the top.

Poor man's Varg.

He's 5'9 dumbass.

Attached: 9d553f5d08553c8947523203b868b999.png (600x677, 305K)

>5'9"
>not a manlet
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

My buddy is a guard at AMAX and he said he's the smartest man he's ever met hands down. Talks like he's gods gift to humanity.

>5'9
XD

Attached: 1496615805028.jpg (1900x2048, 470K)

Fuck off fbi

No, he states that technology comes at the cost of freedom because technology forces us into surrogate activities. The power process is fundamentally disrupted because nobody has to work very hard to attain their basic needs. Technology, by definition, systemizes the human. The human is transformed by technology to conform to technology, but at the same time, the human loses their freedom.

You're all posting in a data mine thread.

Attached: 1521578384874.jpg (236x236, 12K)

Some people are fundamentally incapable of seeing the big picture on things like this. Their minds automatically go "whaaaaa he killed people that meanie :(" when Ted himself outlines in the manifesto exactly why his murders were necessary to not just get his writings published, but also to gain him the infamy that insured people would read and seriously consider his ideas. He understood from the beginning that what he said would fly over the general public's head and 90+ percent of people would disregard him, but it's the minority of lucid thinkers he was aiming to convince. Look no further than the braindead responses to this thread for proof of what I'm saying here.
All examples of what I'm getting at

yes it is undesirable to live like a slave. we should re-shape society and find balance between human happiness and productivity/collective effort. even in an anarchic society where you are 'free' you will still be oppressed by others who wish to assert authority (gangs, tribes fighting for resources). i don't see anprim as the be all end all of 'freedom'. at least a nation state gives way to the foundations of order and commonality between people, that's where 'rights' are established.

So why is Best Korea so hard on tech, and why did tech do great things in former communist countries? I'm pretty sure the biggest threat to my freedom is my government, not Putin. You don't realize what a shithole we are until you realize how hard it is to cut any connection to the US. To give up passport and be released from IRS is a very long and expensive process. But if I don't like it, I can leave, right? As long as I pay 40% asset tax, $5K to give up passport and who knows how many other fees. You can't leave the land of the free. Pretty much everything is like that in the US. Very good propaganda in every imaginable area, and the reality of a regular third world Banana Republic if you actually come across the way whatever it is actually functions. It's a giant Con game if you ask me, not even a totalitarian state. More like a mob ran Potemkin village.

>mathematician prodigy
>genius
>manifesto correct
>targeted traitors and people worth targeting; not random blacks
One of the best thinkers in the past 30 years.

i think there is some common misconception about what freedom is. do you define your own actions as free? would you still define them as free, if would constantly be manipulated into doing one or another action?
i think we are precisely this: constantly influenced and manipulated, wherefore we are unable to act as free agents, and can only try to achieve a certain degree of freedom, using our moral reason, but never can we achieve 'freedom' itself.

This existential tug-of-war between freedom and security is why a strong National Socialist system in a homogenous, high-trust society is, I think, the ideal (one could even say final) solution. Of course technological progress can never fully be reversed barring full scale nuclear annihilation so we need to find the ideal middle ground with a cooperative society that still prioritizes individual liberty and well being.
You're entirely correct that the US is fucked, just don't imagine it will be appreciably different in any 1st world country. The whole, rotten international financial/industrial system must be torn down and buried if mankind is to reclaim its destiny.

bumping this thread, sadly this board is too busy eating up all the bait threads on the new bomber to have an interesting discussion on ol' Teddy

>Human progress

Towards what? This "progress" people like to harp on always takes the white man out of his natural environment and creates an artificial one that requires massive amounts of conditioning and psychoactive drugs to deal with.

I don't buy into the religion of human progress. I jsut want to live in cave out in the wilderness with my woman and children.

He was minding his own business out in the woods. Then someone bulldozed his favorite spot to build a road. Funny how "human progress" allows no one to escape from it. Oh well! Time to pop some oxy amirite?

You bet my splintery woody ass he’s right

Attached: E7034AD0-8589-4B21-9710-FDC0DB07F2E3.jpg (204x247, 14K)

medical progress, energy, transport, weapons, extracting minerals. all these can be greatly beneficial to us. i agree certain aspects of modernity is unnatural and unhealthy for our mental well being, man needs to be with nature. however i believe we can strike a balance between civilisation and 'primitive' living.

would you not use a hospital if your wife or kid had an emergency? would you not be glad to have all this medical progress and tech to save them?

fucking hippy tree huger that fancied himself an intellectual but was so weak minded that he couldn't hack reality and allowed his brain to be reprogrammed by some weak ass psyopps in MK ultra, and then got powed by the US gov.

Bump

Attached: 1494119237257.png (1080x726, 1.82M)

Attached: 1494122024935.jpg (287x425, 64K)

everything he writes is true.

there's a great finnish writer who writes about similar stuff

youtube.com/watch?v=CCd6qisIFKo

Pave the forests, technology now!

he was right about everything

>I jsut want to live in cave out in the wilderness
You can do it. Why don't you move to the wilderness right now?

see
>lol dude just like let the CIA slip you acid and mentally torture you bro like what's the big deal

>be stupid enough to sign up for that shit in the first place.

So you are refusing to live in the wilderness? You mom's basement feel safer?

>and then get a taste of it and then go "well, nothing unusual going on here. think I'll stick with it. This is great."

retard, read that post

because if you weren't a disingenuous faggot you'd have read this thread and understand that the very nature of the system makes it difficult to escape, and then even if you do it does everything in its power to fuck with you/pull you back in. That's kinda the main issue being discussed here.
>dude it was the naive kid's fault he was preyed upon by a soulless government experiment
either troll or kike shill, can't quite tell

Lol, I'm a kike shill? I'm not the one interested in the psychotic ramblings of a literal government tool.

Not a troll either>>> dead fucking serious.

He was right about everything.

Undeniably brilliant, although his killings were senseless.

For a non shill, you sure do seem interested in dismissive, emotional arguments against a man who logically outlined many of the fundamental problems with modern society. Maybe try refuting his arguments?

this. incredibly smart and insightful guy and his manifesto is a good read. he lost me with killing random people though

>analysis of leftists

he foresaw soy?

Attached: 2ere'ed.jpg (497x509, 34K)

I don't accept the premise that they are problems. What is there to refute. Technology is advancing exactly as I have anticipated it would. I don't see a problem or anything worth refuting.

>manifesto
>the 100% guarantee that its a kike hoax \ false flag \ framed \ fake news

A legit genius

I don't think it's any different in any developed country, because I did my research already. It makes no sense to get the hell out of here to go somewhere where it's at best marginally better. This thing stays afloat until some other place can attract people from the US and US allies/vassal state. It's very depressing, actually. Russia is also fucked, even though they are on a slower trajectory into abyss.

Sheeeiit

He foresaw rampant SJW types more so, and accurately describes their underlying ideologies
Have you even read his writings? you sound like a dumbass
What makes you say that? The manifesto is observably correct
Don't lose hope man, nothing is irreversible

t. hasn't even read it.

Yes, I've read his retarded manifesto. What exactly are you not understanding about what I am saying in relation to what he wrote? I don't accept the premise that man would be happier without, with less, or with regulations on the progress of technology. I see no conflict between modern life/technology and man's spiritual health. What exactly are you not understanding?

Its illegal to live in wilderness areas permanently. I go out whenever I get the chance though.

Attached: wild-places-usa-map-990.jpg (990x718, 179K)

[quote]Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homo- sexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is preci- sely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only ma- king a point about leftist psychology.)
14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that wo- men are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.
15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is war- like, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whe- reas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.[/quote]

This bit proves that Ted was Chad to the virgin leftist:

Words like “self-confidence”, “self-reliance”, “ini- tiative”, “enterprise”, “optimism”, etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti- individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve every one’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagohistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

>5'1
Holy shit what a manlet

yes - he was right
we are letting our freedom and many other things go with the advancement of Technology, but shit I like my phone so whatever.

Well then dont pretend to be shocked when people send bombs in the mail or show up to school with an AR-15 and 10 loaded mags.

I mean you anticipated all this so you accept it and realize this is natural and normal.

Attached: Teddy.png (587x611, 178K)

Holly shit! Tell him what he's won bob!

Attached: 0107-bob-barker-sea-shepherd.jpg (600x400, 221K)

I'm not understanding why you refuse to address even his basic points so as to show why you think everything is fine. How about the huge upswing in mental illness, gradual and inexorable destruction of wilderness, and general cultural nihilism and vacuousness that everyone seems to be feeling these days? Or as says the shootings and any number of fucked up things that are happening now that hadn't happened in the past. You know it's only gonna get worse, right?

Hmm... no, never heard of him. Care to elaborate on his manifesto, OP? What should we know about his beliefs?

Best ANTIFA guy EVER

youtube.com/watch?v=QAGxy85R380

Attached: become-ungovernable.jpg (1080x1080, 129K)

Ah, man It's a long conversation. I come here to have some fun/do a little shit posting. Wasn't planning on having to write a dissertation on modern society today. like that you genuinly seem interested in my point of view, if we had a better forum for this I'd be down. I'll give you some short responses to you points out of the respect in your last post. brb.

literally a MKULTRA victim

The problems he detected are absolutely true.
His solutions are absolutely retarded.

>and then even if you do it does everything in its power to fuck with you/pull you back in
Nobody cares about you, don't lie to yourself. You are just looking for excuses not to leave you comfort zone. Deep down inside you know that living in wilderness is a virtual hell for larping treehugger.

Sorry had to do some stuff with my kid.

>How about the huge upswing in mental illness

Evolution will weed out the weak. Humanity will be better of for this in the end.

>gradual and inexorable destruction of wilderness

I am an accelerationist the faster we can get to the singularity the better. The only thing that I am interested in taking a pause for is to work out any potential humanity ending philosophical problems like how to proceed with AI/genetic level eugenics.

>and general cultural nihilism and vacuousness that everyone seems to be feeling these days?

Evolution will weed out the weak.

>Or as says the shootings and any number of fucked up things that are happening now that hadn't happened in the past.

Where are you getting the idea that crazy fucked up shit never happend in the past. That is fucking ludicrous. Or that it isn't better now than it used to be by an order of magnitude?

>You know it's only gonna get worse, right?

Worse that what? the past 10,000 years? I don't accept you premise.

Ted was like karl marx in that he was good at describing and finding problems with society and pol;itics his solutions on the other hand were shit even in his manifesto going completely primal and not using tech because it is currently destructive instead of solving the problem with tech is incorrect agree with his assessment of a industrialized economy though it is a massive problem. I also think that he should be let free or pardoned to a extent it is a shame to left a beautiful mind such as his rot for so many years.

Attached: nazi charge.webm (1000x562, 2.91M)

He's correct. As (((technology))) becomes more advanced it creates its own systems which we are forced in to. We become a slave to technology making us all dependent on the system and others. You see it clearly in the rural/urban divide around the world since the urban centers are the innovation centers for technology and the rural areas only later (and usually reluctantly) get the technology later.
>rural/tradition/survival/independent/individual(+strong biological family unit)
>urban/innovation/comfort/dependent/collectivist(+breakdown of biological family unit)
People think he hated leftists exclusively but in reality he also had huge qualms with the right. He saw the left for what it was a technologically obsessed culture willing to give up independence for slavery to a system, but the right he said were in denial because even though they pushed a . more traditional primitivist/agricultural value system they still accepted the technological system which was working against their ideology.

Attached: Amish_community_ohio.jpg (920x359, 104K)

I like the idea of "evolution will weed out the weak" but due to the extent that society had already evolved, this is no longer occurring. Retards are subsidized en masse and antidepressants keep people in an emotionless haze, i.e. the perfect goyim. Evolution is weeding IN the weak at this point, due to the way the system has permeated everyone's lives. I'm an accelerationist too buddy but we ain't accelerating towards a singularity, shit is unsustainable and I just hope I'm still young so I have a fighting chance when shit finally collapses. I've never implied that fucked up stuff never happened in the past, the difference today is that more people live empty, meaningless lives and it's breaking them, mentally and spiritually. Congrats that you don't seem to feel it but at least on this board that puts you in the minority

His manifesto has some merits, but he is a fucking incel wackjob that shoudn't have done what he did.
If he received proper mental health care at a younger age, he probably would have had a successful career as a mathematician as he was and still is an intelligent man. Read into it, guy had some serious sexual issues in addition to his paranoia/whatever. I recall reading something about him wanting to be a tranny iirc.

>I like the idea of "evolution will weed out the weak" but due to the extent that society had already evolved, this is no longer occurring. Retards are subsidized en masse and antidepressants keep people in an emotionless haze, i.e. the perfect goyim.

No, this is what it seems like to you because your vision is narrow. The things that you have described before are nothing new, and have happened repeatedly throughout history (take the fall of the roman empire for instance - almsot a goddamned mirror of what is happening now only accelerated due to information tech).

>Evolution is weeding IN the weak at this point, due to the way the system has permeated everyone's lives.

I is not, I guarantee you evolution does not work that way. Will we be different to the capabilities of our ancestors? Yes. Is this difference better or worse? Neither. We evolve to suit our environment. Our ancestors would not be able to cope with the environments that we are suited for just as we could not cope with theirs. This is how humanity has always progressed. Jsut like Victorian aristocrat would not be able to cope with the environment on a cave man.

> I've never implied that fucked up stuff never happened in the past, the difference today is that more people live empty, meaningless lives and it's breaking them, mentally and spiritually.

Pretty sure that you are projecting here. I don't see it. I don't accept your premise here.

>Congrats that you don't seem to feel it but at least on this board that puts you in the minority

Well, guess there's a bunch of bitches in this board then.

saved

Funny how there's not much to say about conservatives.

You're fucking moron. Evolution is the survival of the fittest, not of the strongest.

You seem to be still missing or purposely ignoring Ted's central point; that our environment influenced by technological growth has reached the point where it is evolving us, not vice versa. The whole issue here is the collective loss of agency in the name of (((progress.))) There is a threshold where it stops being beneficial. As for your latter points it seems like you're being willfully ignorant as to what I'm getting at.

*facepalm* lolwut?

Yes, those best suited to live in their environment win.

When the hell did I ever say otherwise?

He was right about a lot of shit.

He was NOT right that violence was an answer.

YOU'RE GLOWING CIA NIGGER

>You seem to be still missing or purposely ignoring Ted's central point; that our environment influenced by technological growth has reached the point where it is evolving us, not vice versa.

I am not missing any points. Technology is part of our environment now. Environment dictates evolutionary direction/progress.

>The whole issue here is the collective loss of agency in the name of (((progress.)))

I see no "collective" loss. We are integrating with a new environment (advanced technology). there are going to be a high number of statistical outliers - those capable of making the transition. In fact I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if things climaxed in a great cataclysmic of some kind before they got better.

There is no loss of agency. Seriously, I want specific examples of what you are talking about

>There is a threshold where it stops being beneficial.

I don't accept your initial premise that there is a loss of agency.

>As for your latter points it seems like you're being willfully ignorant as to what I'm getting at.

I'm not so silly. You just seem ignorant to me. (and I don't mean that in an insulting way.)

Edit>>> those capable of making the transition will do so.

sorry

Right there: >Evolution will weed out the weak.

>*facepalm* lolwut?
Cut down the soy.

überprüft

Go jack off to your poster of Nadia Comenich, bitch

@164844444
Weak.

THOSE WERE MEANT FOR ME YOU GERMANIC PICKLE FACED FUCK

Attached: 1520894234831.jpg (821x831, 138K)

I like steak, I'm jsut an oldfag.