Ted Kaczynski Was Right

washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

archive.org/stream/IndustrialSocietyAndItsFuture-TheUnabombersManifesto/IndustrialSocietyAndItsFuture-theUnabombersManifesto_djvu.txt

Explain yourselves, Sup Forums.

>hates technology
>gets found because of technology
Explain, OP.

Of course he was right.
Does not mean killing people is a good way to get yourself heard. You get heard, but for the wrong reasons.

See? Everyone and their dog know there was a Unabomber and "he was a luddite lol", but everyone and their dog carry a spying device in their pocket.

>Try to make a statement
>Do movie villain shit
>Everyone now thinks that anything you ever said is bad
Good job Ted, you fucking idiot.

There is nothing necessary of explanation within your argument, except that Kaczynski didn't "hate" technology and he distinguished between two different varieties of it. Please refer to paragraphs 207 to 212 of Industrial Society And Its Future under the subheading "TWO KINDS OF TECHNOLOGY" for more information.

No

>96. As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of freedom of the press. We certainly don’t mean to knock that right; it is very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect. To make an impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups. Take us (FC) for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted. If they had been been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers, because it’s more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we’ve had to kill people.

"Everyone and their dog" would be carrying a spying device in their pocket today whether Kaczynski killed 3 people and injured 24 more or he didn't. In this case, considering what he was up against (humanity following the path of least resistance being but one factor), there were no "wrong reasons" for being heard. I mean no disrespect for the dead and their families, but many more will when industrial civilization fails.

And what would the alternative have been? Politely point out that we are doomed, why we're doomed and then hope somebody pays attention and does something about it? At this stage, it's irrelevant what he did to draw attention to his argument. It's the argument that matters. Virtue signaling about his taking of human lives and injuring others is useless. Would I say this if I'd lost an arm or an eye because of him? As long as I hadn't lost my cognitive faculties, yes, although I may have called him a swine more so than I do now.

> 207. An argument likely to be raised against our proposed revolution is that it is bound to fail, because (it is claimed) throughout history technology has always progressed, never regressed, hence technological regression is impossible. But this claim is false.

>208. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will call small-scale technology and organization-dependent technology. Small-scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent technology is technology that depends on large-scale social organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology DOES regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down. Example: When the Roman Empire fell apart the Romans’ small-scale technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build, for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans’ organization-dependent technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that not until rather recent times did the sanitation of European cities equal that of Ancient Rome.

>210. So it is clear that if the industrial system were once thoroughly broken down, refrigeration technology would quickly be lost. The same is true of other organization-dependent technology. And once this technology had been lost for a generation or so it would take centuries to rebuild it, just as it took centuries to build it the first time around. Surviving technical books would be few and scattered. An industrial society, if built from scratch without outside help, can only be built in a series of stages: You need tools to make tools to make tools to make tools ... . A long process of economic development and progress in social organization is required. And, even in the absence of an ideology opposed to technology, there is no reason to believe that anyone would be interested in rebuilding industrial society. The enthusiasm for “progress” is a phenomenon peculiar to the modern form of society, and it seems not to have existed prior to the 17th century or thereabouts.

>211. In the late Middle Ages there were four main civilizations that were about equally “advanced”: Europe, the Islamic world, India, and the Far East (China, Japan, Korea). Three of those civilizations remained more or less stable, and only Europe became dynamic. No one knows why Europe became dynamic at that time; historians have their theories but these are only speculation. At any rate, it is clear that rapid development toward a technological form of society occurs only under special conditions. So there is no reason to assume that a long-lasting technological regression cannot be brought about.

>212. Would society EVENTUALLY develop again toward an industrial-technological form? Maybe, but there is no use in worrying about it, since we can’t predict or control events 500 or 1,000 years in the future. Those problems must be dealt with by the people who will live at that time.

The thread is literally about a lengthy manifesto. What are (you) here for then?

Luddite memes and more pictures for my Ted Kaczynski folder.

Hello. Thank you. But is 56 pages really considered lengthy today? If it is, Ted Kaczynski was right. He was right all along. He was right about everything.

For what purpose would you collect these?

That's none of your business.

>But is 56 pages really considered lengthy today?
Depends. 56 pages of survivalist rambling, yes.

56 pages of erotic moot fanfiction, not so much.

He was found because his sister-in-law noticed the manifesto’s writing style and the Unabomber’s letters handwriting matched Ted’s. She asked Ted’s brother to confirm, and he went to the FBI.

Dude was sold out by his brother because of the pussy, write a manifesto on that.

Perhaps not, but you brought it to my attention. Whether it's any of my business or not, it shouldn't be considered as intrusive or rude for me to ask why.

That's funny, but maybe you should reconsider your priorities if you're actually serious.

I would say word count is a better metric to go off in this case. For comparisons sake a novella is about 7,500 - 40,000 words.

Not sure why he killed a bunch of random faggots with bombs though. Would have been way better if he killed people like Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg.

Did he actually write any handwritten letters as "The Unabomber?" I thought he got doxxed by his brother and sister-in-law because of idiosyncrasies in the style of writing and similarity of argument and position? Or is that what you mean?

>That's funny, but maybe you should reconsider your priorities if you're actually serious.
Maybe you should reconsider your life choices if you actually think reading his manifesto somehow makes you an "intellectual"

Pretty much anything outside the realm of "stupid shit that makes your cause look evil" would've been a better option.

>it shouldn't be considered as intrusive or rude for me to ask why.
You aren't entitled to a reason, fuck off.

Yeah, nah, you’re right. It was about the idiosyncrasies and his ideas, not the handwriting.

They weren't random, they were all associated with technology or deforestation in some way. Even some of these individuals had their security or employees open the packages out of suspicion, so maybe he considered top dogs off limits so as to limit subordinate casualties? I don't know. The truth of the matter is that you and I are still discussing this some 40 years after he started this campaign. Would we be if he hadn't killed people and been the subject of an FBI manhunt---the most extensive and costly in FBI history---for nearly 20 years?

Yes, Teddy K was absolutely right. However, I read his manifesto (Industrial Society and its Future) on my Kindle using an ebook file I pirated off of the Internet. Technology has become so ingrained in everything we do and is now the dominant way in which we get and give information. It's unfortunate because all the adverse effects that he enumerates are still accurate today and are in fact getting worse with the internet and smartphones. The thing is though, there's no way out of it now except total global collapse. The way I look at it is computers are machines that we should use for our own good the same way that farming tools would have been before the Industrial Revolution. We should accept the consequences of what we've created and personally fight back to not be controlled by it.

>tfw no eco-terrorist revolution

I don't consider myself an intellectual for reading his manifesto and nor did I before I had read it. I most certainly am not an intellectual. What on earth would make you come out with that, user?

Would it? Why?

Whether I'm entitled to a reason or not will not stop me from asking the question. You came here, to a thread I created, and you made statements. I am perfectly excused for asking you about them. If you don't like that, I suggest that it's you who should "fuck off."

Yeah you're probably right. Just saying would have been better if they were people that I actually knew and disliked I guess. I'll have to look into who the people were to get a better idea.

he was neo-luddite, there are no end in sight to modern civilization

>I don't consider myself an intellectual for reading his manifesto and nor did I before I had read it. I most certainly am not an intellectual. What on earth would make you come out with that, user?
Why on earth would erotic moot fanfic be any less worth a read than the unabombers manifesto, unless you are a pretentious prick?

>I am perfectly excused for asking you about them
You are invading my private sphere, go back to whatever SJW infested hellhole you came from. My reasons are private and my own.

I agree with his overall premise. I'm so goddamned sick and tired of technology, despite ingraining myself with it every single day, being an ITfag. I recognize its utility and even appreciate it more than many, but seeing what social media + smartphones + ease of network connectivity has done to so many people and how they abuse this incredible technology for sheer vapidness, it just sickens me. And I won't be a hypocrite and consider myself above these people. I'm only marginally so, but I, too, fall into these traps and even revel in it.

It's just all so...inane.

>there is no end in sight to modern civilization
That's likely a similar thought French royalty had a decade before they were beheaded. Globo-Corps (and purely profit motivated corporatist business in general) are today's French aristocracy.

>he fell for "down with the bourgeois" meme
I laf

195. The revolution must be international and worldwide. It cannot be carried out on a nation-by-nation basis. Whenever it is suggested that the United States, for example, should cut back on technological progress or economic growth, people get hysterical and start screaming that if we fall behind in technology the Japanese will get ahead of us. Holy robots! The world will fly off its orbit if the Japanese ever sell more cars than we do! (Nationalism is a great promoter of technology.) More reasonably, it is argued that if the relatively democratic nations of the world fall behind in technology while nasty, dictatorial nations like China, Vietnam and North Korea continue to progress, eventually the dictators may come to dominate the world. That is why the industrial system should be attacked in all nations simultaneously, to the extent that this may be possible. True, there is no assurance that the industrial system can be destroyed at approximately the same time all over the world, and it is even conceivable that the attempt to overthrow the system could lead instead to the domination of the system by dictators. That is a risk that has to be taken. And it is worth taking, since the difference between a “democratic” industrial system and one controlled by dictators is small compared with the difference between an industrial system and a non-industrial one. [33] It might even be argued that an industrial system controlled by dictators would be preferable, because dictator-controlled systems usually have proved inefficient, hence they are presumably more likely to break down. Look at Cuba.

(CONT)

>reading comprehension

I've gotten to the point where every new technology, or software update or version makes me think "Oh fucking hell, now what?"

196. Revolutionaries might consider favoring measures that tend to bind the world economy into a unified whole. Free trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT are probably harmful to the environment in the short run, but in the long run they may perhaps be advantageous because they foster economic interdependence between nations. It will be easier to destroy the industrial system on a worldwide basis if the world economy is so unified that its breakdown in any one major nation will lead to its breakdown in all industrialized nations.

This is an often completely overlooked paragraph in the manifesto. I'd just like to draw attention to it and suggest perhaps that maybe there is a little hope left after all---that maybe, just maybe, we have a few friends in the highest possible echelons. Food for thought, maybe.

You'd have to be particularly daft to not see the pattern reemerging.

I couldn't be bothered actually reading through all of his manifesto, just skimmed some parts. Alright. So he is unhappy with the way things are going.
Give me a quick rundown on what he proposes to fix everything that is wrong (according to him) with society.

I fail to see how supposing one might have more value than the other would implicate me as being a "pretentious prick" or not. What if your erotic moot fanfiction ought to take precedence in this situation, what would that make you?

>You are invading my private sphere, go back to whatever SJW infested hellhole you came from. My reasons are private and my own.
Ha. This is a public image board open to any discussion related to its topic. Do you consider this your "safe space?" And you dare to insinuate that I am the "SJW?" You fool.

ITT: "I used to enjoy tech but now I'm old and everything new sucks!"

you have to be even more stupid to believe fake history you have been taught in school that poor peasants themselves overthrown royalty in French revolution

No. Read it or don't. It's your choice. Your laziness will not be catered to with spoonfeeding. Good bye.

>I fail to see how supposing one might have more value than the other would implicate me as being a "pretentious prick" or not.
You appointing yourself to being the judge of what is worth a read and what isn't, makes you a pretentious prick.

>What if your erotic moot fanfiction ought to take precedence in this situation, what would that make you?
Your literal quote was "That's funny, but maybe you should reconsider your priorities if you're actually serious."

What is of value to me and what isn't, is subjective. You are in no position to make that call on my behalf.

Agreed. But there is an ever more pressing matter behind his argument.

>Ha. This is a public image board open to any discussion related to its topic. Do you consider this your "safe space?" And you dare to insinuate that I am the "SJW?" You fool.
Sup Forums has ALWAYS been about privacy, you idiot. Why the hell do you think we are all posting anonymously. Well, except you obviously, because you apparently believe in building an Internet persona and feel entitled to snoop into others' private affairs like you were some communist tumblrina.

You being unable to provide a short summary of the manifesto insinuates that you actually don't comprehend it.

honestly don't care what that nerd had to say.

That's the worst part. This technology could usher in a genuine utopia if people weren't so happy to abuse it and encourage it's usage towards dystopia.

It's like the internal-combustion engine, all it really did was destroy self-sufficient, closely connected, communities and make people have to take two long and stressful journeys before and after a long and stressful day of work.

>You appointing yourself to being the judge of what is worth a read and what isn't, makes you a pretentious prick.
That's exactly what you did, before I'd said anything. Go back and read it, stop being such a hypocrite, and be quiet.

>"I know you are, but what am I?!!"
Not an argument.

Of course it's always been about privacy, but that privacy doesn't extend to people not being able to make threads that you don't like, especially if they are well within the topic allowed for the board they're posted in. That doesn't mean that if you enter a thread and say something, that the nature of a public discussion forum is disregarded and nobody is allowed to comment on what you've said or ask you a question about it. That's ridiculous.

And if this is about my namefagging, I just borrowed it from someone else who was Kaczysnkiposting. It's not a tripcode. Anyone can use it to post anything they want. I'm not a "communist" or "tumblerina" and nor am I "snooping into your private affairs." You posted them on a public discussion board. Are you seriously mentally ill or brain damaged? You argue as if you were.

One could argue that about fire. The technologies are never the issue, we are.

user, I comprehend it. But why should I condense 56 pages for someone who is unwilling to read it? Read it or don't. I'm not fussed, no matter what you accuse me of because of my refusal.

>but that privacy doesn't extend to people not being able to make threads that you don't like
Where the hell did I say anything about not liking your thread, you fucking imbecile?!

I asked for pictures of Ted Kaczynski.
You asked me for what purpose.
I said that was none of your business.
You completely sperged out over me refusing to tell you why I want those pictures.

You are not fucking entitled to a reason, go fuck yourself.

>But why should I condense 56 pages for someone who is unwilling to read it?
You are obviously willing to copy-paste sections from it, despite the fact that you have already provided two separate links to it.

It's clear that you are some sort of try-hard.

and you're not entitled to those pictures, go fuck yourself
next time you ask something from someone try a little courtesy you cunt

My argument is valid be it rhetorical or not. I'll take it a step further now, though. Yes, your erotic Moot fanfiction is of far less importance than Kaczynski's manifesto about the serious dangers of industrial society. Good bye.

>You are not fucking entitled to a reason
Funnily enough, you are neither entitled to images of Kaczynski. It's almost as if requests rely on reciprocation...

>and you're not entitled to those pictures, go fuck yourself
I never implied I were. I just asked, you are the one who sperged out over me refusing to tell you why.

>next time you ask something from someone try a little courtesy you cunt
aka
>"bawwwww you didn't say please"
Go back to your tumblr safe space, faggot.

You didn't ask for pictures of Ted Kaczysnki. You said you were here to expand your luddite folder and collect pictures. That's not the same as asking.

Why are we even discussing this and not the topic at hand? I will entertain you or your colleague no further. I don't have time for this stupidity.

See I never said anything about being entitled, and I never demanded any pictures at all.

This.
Increasing automation, turbocapitalism, social networks, unbridled narcissism, lack of mores,, SJWism etc etc.
We are headed for an interesting future for sure.

user, if you start a thread you're expected to deliver content and keep people in the thread and discussing the topic. Refusing to discuss things and acting hostile is unproductive.

Did he really do anything wrong Sup Forums?

>Why are we even discussing this and not the topic at hand?
Because you are one autistic fucktard failing to simply ignore irrelevancy.

>I don't have time for this stupidity.
Pretentious prickery it is.

I don't think it's that simple.

>catholic
Yes, fucking mics.

>umm like reading books is too hard?
>but tell me what the point is

I'm here delivering content and replying to everyone. What I will not do, however, is waste my time condensing a manifesto for someone too lazy to read a mere 56 pages. I've provided two links to the source material already. If you simply cannot be bothered, then that's tough luck.

>your erotic Moot fanfiction is of far less importance than Kaczynski's manifesto about the serious dangers of industrial society
It isn't so just because you keep repeating yourself, you know.

Well, seeing how he is worshipping a recluse that tried to escape modern society and violently destroy those he saw as proponents of modern society, I didn't really expect anything else from OP. He clearly has issues accepting that other people can have differing views.

You will no longer be entertained.

He never would have gotten his message published or noticed without the bombings, that's an absolute fact. Without them he'd have been another nobody.

Sure he didn't change society, but he didn't really believe he could at that point. What he did do was get his message out which many thousands of people have read and been influenced by.

By the time I or anyone has read 56 pages, this thread will have died due to lack of interest. A well-meaning piece of advice, it's okay to refer people to the original work, but providing a summary to people that appear legitimately interested will get you a lot further than telling them to fuck off and read for themselves.

You're still replying though.

>Well, seeing how he is worshipping a recluse that tried to escape modern society and violently destroy those he saw as proponents of modern society, I didn't really expect anything else from OP. He clearly has issues accepting that other people can have differing views.
I'm not "worshipping" anyone. I'm merely presenting an incredibly strong argument against certain forms of technology from a math prodigy, professor and genius with a 176 point IQ. Who is it again who "has issues accepting that other people can have differing views?"

It's obviously you.

>Make a thread on Sup Forums, asking us to 'explain ourselves'
>post some Elliot Rodget manifesto bullshit as thick as a bible
>"HURERRRRRR I WONT SPOONFEED YOU"
Well, enjoy your thread and subsequently dead discussion, gayboi

This thread is ongoing. If you had just kept your mouth shut and read through the manifesto you could have read it by now and entered the discussion instead of asking for me to do it for you and complaining about it when I refused. Go and read it, or fuck off. I'm not interested in your advice or your replies.

>I'm merely presenting an incredibly strong argument against certain forms of technology from a math prodigy, professor and genius with a 176 point IQ
Sounds like you're worshipping alright.

>Who is it again who "has issues accepting that other people can have differing views?" It's obviously you.

First of all, "no u"... seriously?
Secondly, answering your own rhetorical questions? kek

As thick as a bible? It's 56 pages. And this discussion is not dead.

>dead discussion
You're the one throwing a tantrum, buddy. I and several others are perfectly willing to discuss with OP. Feel free to leave the threat at your leisure.

>I'm not interested in your advice or your replies.
Then why the hell did you even make a thread in the first place?

You simply posted the manifesto and said "explain Sup Forums"

Exactly what is there to explain?

To discuss with people who were either already familiar with the material or who would take the time to review it. Not to discuss it with people who require spoonfeeding in the manner in which you demanded of me.

>To discuss with people who were either already familiar with the material or who would take the time to review it
That's not what you implied with "Explain Sup Forums", I don't buy it. You're obviously backtracking and being a dishonest cunt.

>Not to discuss it with people who require spoonfeeding in the manner in which you demanded of me.
I didn't demand any spoonfeeding, I wanted you to clearify the purpose of this thread because it isn't making any sense at all if you are simply requesting an echo chamber.

You won't get any tldr synopsis from me. Kaczynski's argument is well known here. You can either read the manifesto, familiarize yourself with it, or you can be ignored. I'm not going to address this again.

>makes thread demanding explanation from Sup Forums
>refuses to explain the purpose of the thread
You are one sad fuck.

No

I honestly believe you are incapable of providing a summary.

So far you've merely posted links to it and copy-pasted sections directly from the text.

You have failed to provide any context worth discussion or any form of clarification of exactly what specifically related to the manifesto you intend to discuss in this thread. It is clear that you are some try-hard wannabe.

Ted's problem was that technology didn't respect his freedoms. He saw that technology was controlling people not people controlling technology. Ted was right and if he was born in this generation he would be installing Gentoo with the rest of us.

>I mean no disrespect for the dead and their families, but many more will when industrial civilization fails.
I made a mistake here, I meant to say many more will DIE when industrial civilization fails.

>Ted was right and if he was born in this generation he would be installing Gentoo with the rest of us.
I'm not sure if he would ever have owned a computer. He probably wouldn't have. But if he ever would have I'm sure he would've been a "freetard" (I hate that term) like many of us here, yes.

>was a subject to the MKUltra experiments
REALLY MAKES YOU THINK

Thank you very much for mentioning this. This is something I've always been puzzled about and have struggled to find more information on. Wikipedia states:

>As an undergraduate at Harvard, Kaczynski was a research subject in an ethically questionable experiment conducted by psychology professor Henry Murray, which some analysts have claimed influenced Kaczynski's later actions.

But I don't have a great deal more to go on than that. Do you have something, user?

>believing in conspiracy theories

>Seriously guys technology is absolutely evil, you would live in the woods by now if you were true intellectuals like me. And don't ask me why I'm using a computer right now, I'm doing it for the greater good because I'm an intellectual, remember?

From Murray's Wikipedia page

>In 1947, he returned to Harvard as a chief researcher, lectured and established with others the Psychological Clinic Annex.

>From late 1959 to early 1962, Murray was responsible for what have become widely considered unethical experiments, in which he used twenty-two Harvard undergraduates as research subjects.[4] Among other purposes, experiments focused on measuring people's reactions under extreme stress. The unwitting undergraduates were submitted to what Murray called "vehement, sweeping and personally abusive" attacks. Specifically-tailored assaults to their egos, cherished ideas and beliefs were used to cause high levels of stress and distress. The subjects then viewed recorded footage of their reactions to this verbal abuse repeatedly.

>Among them was 17-year-old Ted Kaczynski, a mathematician who went on to become the Unabomber, a domestic terrorist targeting academics and technologists for 18 years.[5] Alston Chase's book Harvard and the Unabomber: The Education of an American Terrorist connects Kaczynski's abusive experiences under Murray to his later criminal career.

I don't remember much about it, user