What are your thoughts on Ted Kaczynski's views and writings?

What are your thoughts on Ted Kaczynski's views and writings?

Calling him a murderer is not an argument.

Other urls found in this thread:


If you're going to murder people though, it should probably send a coherent message of something that matters to others. If your message is "stop all this civilization right now", that is possibly the least relevant comment you could possibly make.

Very smart guy, very stupid in other ways. basically has the same view as traditional conservatives, only stupider and more impossible.

Hyperbole about solitary murderers and terrorists while bourgeois states and corporations do what they do is dishonest. Ted has some thought-provoking reads, but I don't agree with his primitivism.

Needed more ted and less kaczynski

The problem with Ted is that when I read his writings I find a lot of things I agree with but I just find it that there is no solution to the problem of civilization and his attempts to find one is in my opinion a worthless pursuit. We can't go back to pre-civ times, it's simply impossible, which is why I don't agree with anprims. Meaning that if his ideas are true there is no vision of the world to strive towards. We're basically going to just die. You can't do nothing with his idealogy. You can try and act but it's ultimately futile.

Chomsky also has the same view as me on this. If Ted and the anti-civ people are right. We're screwed.

Shit tier. Should have read more bookchin

Social Ecology my man

Not a bad thinker
t. Leninist

Cranky Kaczynski primitivism isn't a viable or workable philosophy.

My comrades :)

his part about the power process was nice

He was also right about how truly cancerous idpol was. Way ahead of his time there.

If we're going to idolize edgy counter culture figures I'd rather take Assata Shakur, especially since she got away.

His writings are interesting and sure theres a nugget of truth to it all.
Hes still a fucking murderer.

He was a victim of MKULTRA himself. I can't help but feel bad for him plus he was probably a sperg before the CIA cucked him


As were most revolutionary socialist figures.

Not a fucking argument, moron.

pacifist cuck please go

Did Assata Shakur have any theory?

I haven't finished Industrial Society, but I read a few of his essays. Very interesting thinking, a very intelligent man, and I agree with him on modern industrial society, but I feel like the power process is too reductionist and that obsessions and ambitions can be explained better through multiple psychological factors.

Not really sure why he assassinated the people he did though. Why the fuck a university professor or a computer technician? What the fuck did they have to do with the industrial society?

I suspect they were done out of desperation and madness rather than any real methodology.

How stupid are you?

He explains why he did bombings in part 96 of his manifesto.
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 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.

As to why he chose those people, it is probably because their jobs are their 'surogate activities' that he talked a lot about in manifesto.

those who perform a specialized task that requires training) tend to
be so involved in their work (their surrogate activity) that when a
conflict arises between their technical work and freedom, they almost
always decide in favor of their technical work.

largely as a surrogate activity; that is, they satisfy their need for
power by solving technical problems. They will continue to do this
with unabated enthusiasm, and among the most interesting and
challenging problems for them to solve will be those of understanding
the human body and mind and intervening in their development. For the
"good of humanity," of course.

TL;DR: tech and science people are ones who are creating more technology that he wants to destroy

anyone admiring him will rot in the gulag

nigga he tried to blow up a civilian airline flight, this is al-qaeda-tier savagery

If you've read any of his work, you'd know he was only referring to a portion of the post-modern left, the sort of individuals who might subvert any anti-technology movement that might be founded.

When are you going to finally admit that 9/11 was a great piece of art?

Anyone closely following current developments in big data and surveillance technology will see this.

The thing I hated most about his views is that he recognized how shitty life would be under primitivism and yet he wanted it anyway.

quite right they should subvert it

technology liberates man

I don't need to read his works to know that's bullshit.

Im pretty sure the idea is that its still better than what would come of allowing technological society to keep along its current course


a gentlemn and a scholar
the result of advanced technological society is the death of everyone
he only id them a favor

this is what happens when you discover the dialectic but can't handle fact

He was right, in fact I'd go further.

It is better for humanity to eternally live in subsistence agriculture hell and finally die on this planet after a few million years, rather than go down the path of industrial civilisation and artificialise every aspect of human existence. Homo Sapiens WAS NOT and WILL NEVER BE adapted to existing in an industrial society, industrial civilisation will destroy us by eventually moulding us into something very much post-human, and something that is vile and artificial to the perception of any sane human being.

I hope every day for resource exhaustion, nuclear war or some other disaster to end industrial civilisation and this sick modern world. I know I would die in this scenario no matter what, along with basically everyone around me, but at this point it is the only way to preserve the natural world and the human species.

Human beings are a pretty shitty species anyway, it's not like we deserve to leave this planet. With our innate way of thinking full of contradictions, our necessity to view an inhuman universe through a rose-tinted human lens, and our position as an apex predator priming us to expand through the universe as a race that consumes and pillages (accelerating the heat death as we go), I really hope we never touch the stars and I'm glad that we probably won't.



He would be a great read if it weren't for his strong faith in psychology spooks.
Baudrillard has more interesting things to say about technology and artificial perfection. Virilio is also worth checking out, but he likes to dramatize some minor aspects too much while ignoring the rest.
There are not many good writers about technology tbh, most political thinkers somehow manage to ignore the fact that in our age technology is one of the most powerful political forces, way beyond party politics.

Go figure.
Unfortunately completely unreadable purple prosaic dreck mostly, but cool ideas.
Yep, many on this board believe their theory tailored for a military junta to introduce industrial development to a mass mobilized rural peasantry a century ago is literally all you need to understand what's happening rn, if you just weasel in some Lacan.

He liberally used the word "leftist" for idpol peddlers yet had some thoughts about what a life without scarcity looked or would look like, with aristocrats as his example of those who didn't experience it.

Every time his name is mentioned the first reaction is a recoil followed by pretending to understand him followed by not understanding why people like Zizek valued him followed by people not being aware that along with Hegel and Zizek, Lacan is basically one of his pillars.

If only Holla Forums actually bothered to investigate Lacan. For now, there's more biological determinists here who think the human psyche is just neurochemical reactions, and to which a pill or electron therapy is the only and sufficiently viable solution, forever.

Don't make me start posting excerpts from Ecrits again.

You know what I mean bub, but nice meme.

Have you sperged out like that before? I need to see this.

At any rate, you do you, but I strongly suggest to you specifically this reading of Écrits over the original cream. (Much of Écrits and Séminars is loosely collected works which I can fully understand might be a cut above your [current year] sensibilities, comrade!)

Of course.

I'll read it and consider not memeing on Lacanians when you stop memeing the false dichotomy about everything else being the most vulgar medical psychiatry.

He was a retarded Luddite and a primitivist terrorist piece of dirt and anyone who believes in his ideas is by definition a genocidal fascist piece of turd. His ideology is one of the most extreme versions of right wing there is.. so may I ask why this is posted on Holla Forums of all places? He was not a leftist. He was not an anarchist. And he hated leftists to an extreme degree

Lacan is unintelligible nonscientific garbage, which is hidden in language of the science-like. It's turtles all the way down.


The Lacanian cancer must be cut from leftist thought

I'll need to see myself some of that someday then.

Buddy, the only reason I meme up the false dichotomy is precisely because this board in particular rejects even investigating (Lacanian) psychoanalysis on the basis that it's all bunk and outdated in the face of neuroscience. It's why I can't help but kek when I see you claim that this board advocates any Lacan whatsoever: this board is as crypto-positivist as it gets.

I'm currently reading this book and I find Lacan and if his ideas very fascinating, especially to the illustration of Slavoj.

I'm curious what your opinion on why Lacans ideas and this board are mutually exclusive.

Why not? No one ever got baked from reading a book.

Unless the crux of your post was:

Nice piece of text there, buddy. It'll do your job or arguing your case just fine (not).

Now read: qz.com/734450/almost-everyone-in-buenos-aires-is-in-therapy/

It was never there to begin with, buddy. The only person trying to show its use for the left today is Zizek, and he has good reasoning (Lacanian adaptation of Saussurean linguistics is indispensable for understand functioning of ideology once you understand how it works).

If you'd drop the autismo-positivismo pants for a second instead of rallying behind your sadism fetish every time you've read half a paragraph of the first text on Lacan, we might get somewhere. Now get to reading: gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=B38DB8A4812722A8F885DB97FA9D220B

I've yet to read that, but I can trust it's good if it's Zizek on Lacan. His "How to Read Lacan" is, as aptly as it is titled, also very good if you want to read the man directly.

Most importantly, Lacan provides a much more refined explanation for behavior under capitalism than Marx's explanations did, which were simply predicated on the idea that one end keeps the other end ignorant. Lacan provides a consistent framework for understanding human action based structural linguistics, which manages to both show that things are much more complicated than that, yet at once also much clearer.

You first.

Then let me fix that.

The Lacanian cancer must be cut from leftypol's thought

forgot to add.

Wow, getting people to talk about their feelings is a good thing? No way. I would have never thought that allowing people do do this on a regular basis would make people feel good.

No causation there, and spurious correlation at best.

This meme of a text has been linked here so many times I know it by heart now. I'm surprised you didn't post the most demagogue-tier one: Shrink from Hell (add it to your tipping collection if you'd like: timeshighereducation.com/books/the-shrink-from-hell/159376.article)

Never there, either. A reluctance to even start investigating Lacan and the point people like Zizek make about his usefulness is sure to keep Holla Forums safe from the devil that is Lacan, and well within the safety of its ignorance. All to the credit of brave rationals like yourself, good sir! *tips*

If that's all Lacanian psychoanalysis is about, you'd have to wonder why psychotherapies like behavioral therapy and ego psychology bear no such similar positive results and in fact seem to turn people to suicide… Oh wait, that's because Lacanian psychoanalysis is more than just chit chat with a guy being paid to read out the latest DSM and give you the good news in exchange for a signature on the insurance company's files.

He says, while insisting that an article written by a notorious polemicist bravely "debunking" the evil Freudian cult of Lacan is cause for an argument.


Apply yourself, you hack.

Every time.

You're welcome.

I realize now that I must leave and admit defeat in the face of such superior debating skills. I truly hate Lacanian psychoanalysis now… :-(

This meme of a text has been linked here so many times I know it by heart now.
Then what are your criticisms of the text?

I don't really like that article as it not an attack on Lacanianist thought itself.

Also garbage

even more garbage

At least the DSM is systematic and statistical in it's approach. Not that the DSM is the be all to end all.

You say that like it's a inherently bad thing.

It's not just doing that though, it attacks Lacanian thought.

Also, from
pic related (From OECD World Happiness Report 2016 Update)

That it's not an argument. A simple look at Webster's credentials should have been enough. I'm honestly surprised a guy like you (I'm assuming you're that Batko guy) would unironically think he's good to rely on.

Otherwise, it's riddled with biological determinism and raising up a caricature of the psychoanalytic discipline to then "critique", something you'd know if you were even properly acquainted with the basics of what you're supposedly so heavily against.

In its approach on how to sell us our pseudo-happiness, maybe: youtube.com/watch?v=vtfBl79hs-M

Can you say "goalposts", or does the amount of dishonesty here simply escape you?

To repeat: I truly must leave and admit defeat against such grandiose displays of debunking now. I'll be getting myself the latest Harris and a subscription to the WHO fact sheet on the way out, I guess.

CONINTELPRO's greatest triumph.

are you that Freudfag that assblasted the entire board that one time an user made a thread about "listening to Holla Forums" and stopped taking his meds and wanted to kill self?

This is what Lacanians actually do.

I'm not bat'ko, but he's good people.

So no behavior is based on biology?

Is it a caricature when he quotes and refrences people who have been through Lacanian classes.

Why the fuck would I want to read that word salad garbage, let alone understand it? See

I'm not moving the goalposts, my point that allowing people to talk on a regular basis is good, but the shit that Lacan thought was garbage.


No, but I know who you're talking about.



He doesn't like agriculture much either, but while industrial civilization will collapse on its own, there really isn't any way to stop agriculture from being practiced.

That image macro has no argument.

nigga, reducing humanity to hunter-gatherers is much better.
agriculture will just lead to civilization to rise again.
People also lived much better as hunter-gatherers then they did in early agricultural societies

Tribal-Primitivism when?

behold Pol Potist-Vikerness thought

We are all COINTELPRO just by being a retarded echo chamber on the Internet, that's truly their greatest triumph.

are you talking about Holla Forums?
because if you know any left-wing echo chamber that keeps shills and failtrolls out, please share.
only such place i know of is my google+ circles, and i don't want to use botnet services anymore.

the entire internet seems like all the places in which you could have constructive discussions about progressive ideas were turned into shitholes.

You mean MKULTRA.

gave me a chuckle