Ted kaczynski anarcho-primitavism and technocracy

he was right wasnt he?
after a certain point the government and the porkies almost ceased to run the show….
its just moving on auto-pilot at this point t b h
at the absolute least he debunked technocracy
even if this technocratic utopia was established the massive amount of soul crushing control needed to make it work would make it borderline un-livable

Other urls found in this thread:


He talked shit about leftists, guy was a fucking red-pilled cucktard

their "alternative" is the collapse of society into underdeveloped tribalist shitholes

the only "leftists" he disliked were idpol liberals who believed that attempting to "save" blacks somehow covered up the over inflated ego and sense of self worth and obvious superiority complex
as far as i know he never shit talked socialists/leftists

well if u go with kaczinskis ideas then thats actually preferably because the opposite is living in literal Orwell fever dreams
whats more valuable?
do u want technocratic utopia communism and have to be the states/machine/A.Is bitch?
or live like the amish but have the peace of mind of not being the states bitch?
at some point i think people will have to pick and i know which i choose

Think dialectically user. The synthesis of society and non-society isn't non-society. We can't roll back the clock or bet on the continuation and expansion of the status quo, with it's inumberable contradictions

They never did "run the show". Capital (self expanding value) does. Even the bourgeois and statesmen are powerless in the face of market forces, and it has been this way since capitalism's inception. It's worth pointing out that this has nothing to do with technology, but rather is down to the nature of commodity production itself, even if you set society back several hundred years this would still be the case.

I choose to reprocess primmie scum like you into biofuel and continue living in technological society.


He was a good mathematician and that's all that needs to be remembered.

Ted is a very very smart man. He was a mathematics professor at a university in his early 20's.
He was right a lot about a lot of things. Lots of great insights and criticisms in his writings.

On the other hand he is an anti social sperg.

There are two types of people in politics, men of letters and men of actions, and he was both.


he was mad that leftist got more pussy them him

He is clearly volcel

He actually tried to court a woman he worked with after he quit being a professor, and then upon rejection he started harassing her at work so much he got fired. He was an incel
He was also a NEET who lived completely off of his parents money for the majority of his life.

You know on some issues he was completely right how human psychology is changing with the advent of instant communication and more consumable media, and how we are effected my tech's role in our society

However, the conclusions he makes based on politics is completely wrong and sounds like shoddy psycho-analysis. Especially about what he considers a broad "leftism" that isn't definable by liberal or communist, just statist. It's clear he knew about the problems but didn't blame the source.

Of course, he is right, socialism will bring more technology our way, and I suppose in that argument he was right in opposing it in his own world view.

But much of his criticism in his manifesto came from how Capitalism and automation/mechanization function, rather than it in general.

I also don't believe that mechanization can be a bad thing. He was mostly right in just observations, but not conclusions.

Fuck off you fucking putrid triprunt

Is that new unabomber miniseries worth watching?


It's sad that the Avatar man is forced to do TV now is my take away from it

But it's kind of interesting. I just hate the time jumps from past to "present", past to present. The narrative is disjointed for no real reason. I guess to be serious seeming or whatever about this character.

If it weren't for the CIA fucking with him through psychological experiments, he would've likely been a well known respected mathematician among academia.

He did criticize socialists because he thinks the entire industrial system is oppressive. Socialism is an industrial system as far as most socialists are concerned. Ted thinks that people become controlled by the specialized relationships between humans and their roles in the global techno-industrial machine. He feels this limits freedom. He is also not an anarchy-primitivist, though. He doesn't hate technology, just the global industrial system of technology. He thinks tools are fine. He is a kind of anarchist though, and has explicitly endorsed small groups of humans working together in a sort of agricultural or hunter gatherer manner of living.

That is what I remember from reading a couple of his writings.

He hated right wingers too you moron.