"When people find their culture or their economic welfare disrupted by the influx of large numbers of immigrants...

>"When people find their culture or their economic welfare disrupted by the influx of large numbers of immigrants, their reaction is to hate the immigrants rather than take account of the fact that massive population movements are an inevitable consequence of economic developments that result from technological progress."

>"The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society with out causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values."

How old were you when you realized that the technological-industrial system is the true enemy?

Other urls found in this thread:

cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

explain to me how the advent of smartphones made fucking dogs legal in canada

He has a very interesting point, but there was a time when the United States shut down all immigration for 40 years -- To say that mass immigration is an "inevitable consequence" of technological process is like saying that getting robbed on the street on a regular basis is an inevitable consequence of having a well-paying job.

*progress

he's not even white, he's polish slav
>disregard his non-white degeneracy

209 fuckers

The idea is that once you make available technologies that permit easy, rapid long distance travel - cars, airplanes, modern sailing vessels, etc - then there is no real way to prevent large scale population movement. You can surely reduce or delay it but it will eventually happen one way or another.

A similar case can be made for the breakdown of moral values - you can hold them off or reverse them temporarily but as long as it's advantageous to the system, as an example, for women to be loyal to the system over their families, then the social changes that lead women to enter the workforce and reduce the strength of the nuclear family are inevitable.

Virtually everything you think is the fault of the left or the jews or the marxists or whatever is more appropriately laid at the feet of the techno-industrial system.

He's right

Left and right will both fuck you with immigrants

It's why nationalism is a thing, and it's not left or right by design

He has it backwards.

Worship of the material (ie, disconnection from Tradition and spirit) engenders deadening technology.

>You bought a fancy new flat screen tv, OBVIOUSLY you should expect squatters in your living room

Yes, the industrial revolution was where it diverged, and left and right both end up fucking the common person over for the greater profits

conservative try to slow down gloabalsm

liberals try to speed it up

it will happen slowly but surely

>we have technological advancements therefore we need an influxof third world goat worshippers who can barely read

This is why the Roman Empire was the pinnacle of humanity, we can never go back. It's shit from here on out.

>tfw no qt sex slaves

Well Ted, I agree that traditional society will breakdown as a result of immigrants. However, to blame it on technological process and economic growth. Well that in the anarcho-primitive in you speaking. So you're committing an appeal to nature. The truth is the breakdown occurs not because of any factors besides exposure between cultures. Others things made add, or slow (perhaps, it would be conjecture), but it the factor is people will find "disruption" regardless as long as two different cultures again.

>Women's fashion keeps getting skimpier and more sexualizing
>Higher counts of rape is a inevitable consequence justified by the changes in the fashion industry

>build a wall
>have border patrol
>any planes or helicopters or boats will be obvious and you can send them back easy peasy

>90% of illegal immigration halted

>being an anarcho-primitivist
You can have technological progress without becoming a country of ethno-masochist cuckolds who cheer their own destruction. His essay was excellent, but we can't revert to primitivism. His plea is unrealistic. We have to get used to technology, but we have to remember our roots and what technology is really for in the first place.

Sure, clashes between cultures and the dominance of one over another have been occurring as long as there have been groups of humans large enough to develop disparate cultures. But the scale to which we're seeing it today, particularly in cases like the refugee crisis in Europe, is something that would be impossible without the aid of modern technology. And given the existence of said technology, isn't it inevitable that people from less wealthy nations will attempt to travel to more wealthy ones?

Yeah but every single technological advancement was made by white or yellow people
Why are they brigging the brown ones ?
Nobody would be complaining if they brought more whites or yellows

fpbp

this, why aren't we saving the whites in south africa? East asians are also far more preferable to hordes of barbaric retarded africans or middle easterners with their hatred of the west and their barbaric religion and cultural views

>technological progress

Advancements can be made in a homogenous society.

>Evidence: Japan, Europe and USA pre-1960s, etc.

Nice try Unacuck.

>economic growth

Here he is correct. The neoliberal model we operate under requires a growing population. It can't tolerate drastic downward fluctuations in population size. This is one of the reasons the industrialists and bankers want nonwhites hordes. More consumers means more morons to buy the shit the companies churn out.

You're missing the point. The idea is that technological progress creates a society permissive of large-scale immigration. Walls don't matter if the citizens don't want to build them.

Every major Jewish organization in the world fights tooth and nail to increase non-white immigration in every white-majority nation on the planet. You may as well argue that death itself is a force which can only be "reduce[d] or delay[ed]", and that we therefore should just let it wash over us right now, etc. Jewish Liberalism/Progressivism is the death force, which, while a necessary part of evolutionary forces, is nothing that I myself would want to be a part of facilitating. As I see it, I am on the side of life.

>inevitable

that's not what OP or who I responded to said but you're right. Except that that is mostly due to manipulative media campaigning.

Japan doesn't have this shit at all

That same technological curve also all owes greater control of ones border

much like a rich man can afford to pay more to protect his home the same rate he can fill it with better gadgets ant tvs

I made this thread mainly because I've been reading through his collected writings and find myself being very thoroughly convinced of his viewpoint and have begun to learn toward anarcho-primitivism myself. The only real criticism I can muster is that a return to a pre-industrial society would leave us vulnerable to an inevitable global extinction event. But I'm sure he would argue that it's just as likely that runaway technology will destroy the human race long before any meteor or supervolcano has a chance to do so.

So how do you argue against this position when you start to realize that all of the social and political problems you're fighting against are not the fault of the left or shadowy politicians but simply the inevitable byproducts of technological progress?

Human progress is inevitable. It is human nature to invent technology that makes our life easier.

>literally voted in a man who ran on building a giant wall and deporting illegals.

people don't eat shit because the taste either but these are not issues.

Why is mass immigration inevitable

Yea like stronger border controlling tech and innovation is also inevitable.

you should be asking why successful mass immigration is inevitable.

it's our moral obligation import brownos because somewhere in the past white ppl mistreated them.
yes this is the accepted narrative.

But you need a passport and ticket to travel. You cant just fly to usa and then live there

If they had proper immigration control then illegals would be deported without fuss

r-selection.

what was this nigga's iq again? his argument didn't make me really think.

I like this guy.
I disagree. We see examples in history where a migrant crisis has lead to quick downfalls ( Moors, Visigoths, Khan), however, as Gibbons points we always blame the invaders, technologicy, and economic harder times. A culture war is only lost if the host culture (America) becomes weak as it turns away from traditional roots which happens as process of blooming as civilization. Lastly the point of less wealthy wanting to travel to wealthy ones is a fallacy. It's a classiest one. If you want to cotinue to claim the migrant crisis is worse today with technology than any point before, Imma need see some figures and numbers comparing. Burden of proof. Till then on with technology long live post-scarcity.

Silly notion, one aspect of advancement or change does not necessitate change of another.

there is no reason, because it's not.

Kaczynski was a living meme and an edgelord

like who the fuck blows people up to make them agree with you?

he literally started bombing people because one of his favorite forest walks got a road paved through it or some dumb shit, if I remember correctly

Whites have always been a minority m8 we control the majority brown skin population historically and tech only makes it easier

(((Inevitable)))

If massive technological progress entails automation, which causes higher rates of unemployment due to replacing low-skilled jobs, resulting in higher educational qualifications for the careers remaining, why does a developed country need more low-skilled, uneducated immigrants by the millions? The rise of automation will make most of the these immigrants obsolete, leaving only a small demand of highly educated workers, which can be met by most developed nations.

>inevitable consequence of economic developments

>make more money
>WE NEED MILLIONS OF UNEDUCATED IMMIGRANTS IN OUR COUNTRY THAT ONLY BRING CRIME AND MISERY FOR THE LOCAL INHABITANTS, THERE'S JUST NO OTHER WAY
How about no. The problem is ignoring race, forcing full suffrage, and allowing political parties to gerrymander through immigration.

>conservative try to slow down gloabalsm

No they don't. They're just as happy to fuck over the nation state. Did you forget that Rubio and Bush wanted blanket amnesty? Cruz wanted increased H-1B visas by 500%?

how about just enforcing the laws against illegal immigration, its not that complicated kid.

THIS

well put

The Jews simply don't want to have less consumers and bodied to control who "need them" while also employing less people.

>like who the fuck blows people up to make them agree with you?
That wasn't his goal, retard. He specifically targeted people who furthered techno-industrial society, he wasn't trying to get them to subscribe to his newsletter

Large population movements are a result of not enforcing one's borders, not the economy.

Also, this country become a super power during the 40 years we banned ALL immigration. Needing a constant flow of immigrants is a meme.

But, isn't Japan a prime example of a techno-industrial system?

Yet, it somehow doesn't have these problems.

The only economic development was well organized successful white societies stupidly allowing worthless useless foreign invaders get on benefits.

The current movements of various groups of brown people into white nations should show you how little things like passports matter. Sure, there are reactionary movements popping up - you guys are refusing boatloads of migrants, we're (hopefully) building a wall, but the damage has already been done. And this is a long term prediction. Can you honestly say that your society will remain as anti-immigrant as it is now for the next 100 years? The next 50 years? 25? The second your society becomes more permissive toward immigration - and well all know that the pendulum will swing in that direction eventually - there will be swarms of poor non-whites ready to pour into your country.

The only way your society could be truly free from large scale immigration would be if there were no means for potential immigrants to A) learn about the existence of your country and spread that knowledge in a fast and far-reaching manner and B) travel to your country in large numbers.

I'll take this moment to point out also that the factors that lead to the kind of population growth that necessitates mass migration is itself a product of technological progress. Otherwise, populations would be kept at a reasonable level by natural population checks. When populations grow at such massive rates, migration is the inevitable result. You may feel optimistic about your ability to keep immigrants out but there will come a point when you will be either overwhelmed by sheer numbers or your society will become permissive enough to once again permit large numbers of immigrants to enter your nation.

The industrial revolution was a mistake.

More people = bad
Less people or the same amount of people = good
Doesn't matter which race, religion, culture.

Stop immigrants.
Stop anti-abortion retards.
Stop spawning like fucking animals and have some goddamn sense.

Technology makes it easier and cheaper to avoid pregnancy and fix the mistakes that slip through the cracks. A large economy can keep the immigrants out regardless of also being the reason they're coming.

A stable population should be the goal of any great society.

All letting populations run wild leads to is famine, lower quality of living, and the eventual wars that balance things temporarily.

>The industrial revolution was a mistake.

No, LBJ and the Immigration Act were the fucking mistake.

God, fuck everyone involved with that shit.

>he literally started bombing people because one of his favorite forest walks got a road paved through it or some dumb shit, if I remember correctly

The reasoning he gives in his manifesto is that the bombings were necessary to draw attention to himself. Having an idea is easy; getting people to pay attention to it is hard.

He bombed people for a while and then sent his manifesto to newspapers and said he'd stop the bombings if they published it. The effectiveness of his campaign can be judged by the fact that we're currently discussing his ideas.

When I realized that technology, industry and complexity are just general terms for people interacting the enrivonment.

>The industrial revolution was a mistake.
This desu

>tfw you will never be friends with ted
>tfw you will never chill out at his cabin and talk about books and politics

y live

Where can i read his Manifesto? Anyone?
I dont wanna but it, because hes dead anyway

>because hes dead anyway

nah, he's chilling in a supermax

Ok, and how is it possible that "Jewish organizations" have the power to control the masses? Through technology.

Again that does not make mass immigration inevitable.

fucking kek

one fights for the destruction of all technological processes

the other wants to 420 blaze it fuck you mutha fucka stockton

google you bellend

Explain Japan

Well, let's approach it from a different direction as I did here . You know, I'm sure, that the vast majority of population growth this century is predicted to occur in Africa. This growth of course would not be taking place without the spread of advanced agricultural technology.

So Africa's currently on the path to endless exponential population growth. Even if you think that current migrant trends aren't that bad from a historical perspective, consider the future: those Africans are not going to remain in Africa. They will continue to reproduce and eventually will reach a breaking point where they will either be forced to migrate or experience those natural population checks in the form of mass starvation or war.

Can you honestly say that the West will sit idly by and watch tens of millions of Africans die of starvation? I'd have no problem with it personally but I know better than to think everyone else would feel the same way. The same case is true if large scale warfare breaks out. Will we refuse African refugees when our televisions are full of images of mass graves and state sponsored genocide?

If Africa's population continues to increase - and it will, as long as the technology for it to do so exists - then it is inevitable that it will reach this point and it is then also inevitable that those Africans will begin to spill over into the rest of the world. And once this process begins, it will be very, very difficult to stop since none of this will cause them to stop reproducing as fast as they can.

I don't disagree. But technology = a globalized world makes it much more likely. Ted's point is that advances in technology lead to changes in the social world, or at least it allows change to proliferate much, much more quickly.

We only economize technologies that make our life better.
A border wall on the southern US border has no value since there are more illegals emigrating than coming in.

>cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt

Very much worth the read, if only for his vicious criticisms of the left.

>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 warlike, 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; whereas 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.

That's why its a two prong step with mass deportation m8

illegal immigration is economically a downfall for the nation in the billions a year regardless of how they arrive

Google "Unabomber Manifesto".

It's good, but a long one.

>explain importing radical muslims and trying to legalize gay marriage at the same time.. whats this got to do with robotics?

cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt

Is anarcho-primitivism the answer?

>Technology progressing causes massive population movements as an inevitable consequence
(note no direct connection made)
>The conservatives are fools
Am I reading this correctly?

I'm unironically hoping for an all out nuclear war desu, there's only 2 outcomes, I die and escape this hellish reality, or humanity gets knocked back to its golden age and the sick, twisted modern world is held off for a few hundred more years.

Most economists agree illegal immigrants are a net positive for the US economy.

I'm starting to feel that way, which is a depressing realization given that the movement seems to be a huge mess of leftist trash. Ted, while advocating anarcho-primitivism himself, heavily criticizes the current movement in some of his later writings.

So given how I'm already a member of a pretty fringe group here at Sup Forums, I'm not sure how eagerly I want to embrace right wing anarcho-primitivism, or whatever Ted's brand would be called.

The two quotes aren't connected. The first is from one of his prison correspondences and the second is from his manifesto. They just seemed like good ones to spark a debate.

More people = more money overall.
No shit sherlock, that doesn't make immigrants beneficial for their host.

>Africa
>Resource rich land
>Oh no, people are causing trouble, better run to the USA so they can take care of us instead of trying to make our continent better.
>Oh no those poor Africans, better import them instead of sending help to them their so they can have their own land.

They have all that land, how about someone actually us it once?

yes

>there is no real way to prevent large scale population movement

explain japan

build wall

>human nature to invent technology
Well, if you're white or asian anyway

Technological progress and economic development does not mean you need muslim and nigger ghettos

This.
"So what if it's only big corporations that make the money, it's more money coming in so it's good! It's fine as along as the corporation make money, the common citizens making any doesn't matter!"
It does matter. If the common people are poor, your country is poor.

>implying ted wouldn't have blown you up in response to some perceived offense

Japan is an island. Also, it is constantly plagued by earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, volcanoes and storms.

Still build wall tho.

>mass and instant communication
>easier to come in contact with people who have weird fetishes
>rare fetishes begin to meet up
>eventually become more and more accepted
>community forms
>the more accepted it becomes the larger the community grows, which in turn, grows the acceptance, etc...
>eventually grows accepted enough to become legal

didnt even take a minute

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

Kaczynski was not an anarcho primitive

He advocates the destruction of the techno-industrial system and considers the nomadic hunter-gatherer society to be the natural state of human beings. He just disagrees with the way the anarchoprimitives depict that society. The movement has been largely co-opted by the left and they've forced a lot of their values onto tribal societies - imagining that they were all full of gender equality, mass amounts of leisure time, free of violence, etc. One of Ted's frequent admonitions is that any successful revolutionary movement must go to great lengths to exclude leftists lest they destroy it.

He doesn't like the current anarchoprimitive movement because it's full of leftist shills who have a inaccurate understanding of what nomadic life was like and who will never accomplish anything of note due to being whiny leftists, but he agrees with the basic idea. From the end of that essay:

>"So I agree with the anarchoprimitivists that the advent of civilization was a great disaster and that the Industrial Revolution was an even greater one. I further agree that a revolution against modernity, and against civilization in general, is necessary. But you can’t build an effective revolutionary movement out of soft-headed dreamers, lazies, and charlatans. You have to have tough-minded, realistic, practical people, and people of that kind don’t need the anarchoprimitivists’ mushy utopian myth. "

>The effectiveness of his campaign can be judged by the fact that we're currently discussing his ideas.
His ideas are nothing that people before him haven't said already, and they didn't need to kill anyone to get people to read their stuff.

Read Marshall McLuhan, Neil Postman, Jacques Ellul etc - they say the exact same things except without as much /r9k/ craziness.

Read . No shit that generally more people = more taxes, but an even better outcome is more locally produced people instead of importing them.

1. They will already speak the language and be familiar with the culture

2. They will have deep family roots for support in case things go wrong so less stress on the state for welfare or education

3. They're usually European descended, so they have a good balance of being statistically healthier, smarter, and better looking

>His ideas are nothing that people before him haven't said already,
As you could say about everyone who has ever lived going back to the creation of writing

>How old were you when you realized that the technological-industrial system is the true enemy?
I learned that was true when I played an Atari

He was, he criticized an-prims for not being hardcore enough.

Well, yes, but usually it's something that you have to go back to a previous "cycle of history" to find, his stuff is mostly a compilation of stuff that his contemporaries have said a decade or two earlier.

I mean, it's mostly correct, I have no problem admitting that, but it's (if you disregard the autistic style and wanting to fit everything into this grand narrative even though some things are a bit of a stretch) really just observations that any intelligent person can make about the society they're living in.

>massive population movements are an inevitable consequence of economic developments that result from technological progress."

So if we put the military on the border and literally forced immigrants back, then... something magical would happen to make them come in regardless?

You know, you could write him a letter with some of these questions/reservations and he'd likely respond. What else does he have to do with his time?

Indeed, more of an anarchist primate if you hear me. His ramblings are supported by intuitions, never does he dare using empirical data or follow through his demonstrations. You can't pretend that every single one of your arguments is self-obvious or standalone. That he does, constantly. Weak.