Explain to me why you think this man was wrong, Holla Forums...

Explain to me why you think this man was wrong, Holla Forums. Reality is starting to seem more and more like some waking nightmare where humanity is slowly sleepwalking to some technological dystopia, with only the promise of either climatological or nuclear armageddon to possibly prevent it from coming to pass any time soon.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DcfEAY-Gt7E
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism
washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

Do we think that? Every post about him I’ve seen on this board has been positive.

He thought blowing up some random scientists will somehow help.

because only his fanboys talk about him

...

Or that there was any way an anti-technological revolt could happen before it was too late. People generally only realize the danger once it affects them.

He was a genius that got ruined by the higher ups at his university that conducted horrible experiments on him. What he did was neither good nor bad. It was pointelss. What a pitiful victim and madman.

To be honest, I can't. Because pic related.

I put my tongue in a girls vagina for the first time yesterday.

The retarded bomb shit was wrong, but I do agree with a lot of his thoughts about civilization and his general annoyance with most leftists. Actually might reread Industrial Society and Its Future since this thread got me thinking about it.

He thought blowing people up and having his manifesto published could change anything, when in truth there's nothing we can do and to quote Heidegger "only a god can save us now."

Because we couldn't have stopped this.

I like to shit while sitting on the comfy toilet

I would choose comfy toilet tyranny over freedom of shitting where I like any time of the day

...

let's all just read kierkegaard and pray

I dunno, but I highly recommend The Systems Neatest Trick by him. Utterly and brutally BTFOs idpol, and I'm not even that anti-idpol.

I was reading some of the Unabomber Manifesto and it really fucking bummed me out. It was around the time I was also reading Fanged Naumena by Nick Land, which is not a good mix at all. I was feeling pretty suicidal, I mean I feel suicidal anyway but it didn't help.

It just made me so hopeless and what's the point in even finishing this sentenceehsbsbsbbznsnmk s kzjzjzjjsk

something like this:
The nightmare is capital marching in its aspiration towards being the social totality, and not technology as such, techne, etc.
He's absolutely right about the disaster. He's partly correct about the Left. I said this elsewhere, but I think an important hang-up for Ted is that techne are artificial or not natural (unlike violence) and therefore somehow are not okay for humans to use. But where is the line drawn between an animal in the world and techne? I would like to think humans could communise and destroy work and value in a good old Marxist fashion, reconcile with Nature and so on. Also, read Perlman's "Against His-Story, Against Leviathan!" for a sort of deep explanation of the disaster that is both speculative-materialist but also human/psychical/empathetic whatever you would call it if you read the whole thing. You will learn something reading it almost certainly.

you would say that humanity has become "standing-reserve" viewed in the 'productive enframing'/challenging forth mode of unveiling and that we're truly fucked or worse?


you can shit in the thunderbox

I would say humanity no longer has any say in the process unfolding before our eyes (if we ever did at all). We're living in the time of "Angelopolis".

But if racism, sexism and violence are dangerous to the System, wouldn't it follow that becoming some sort of Nazi rapist or whatever is a revolutionary act?

If you define revolution as anything that's contrary to the mainstream then yah I guess it is but so is infanticide. Doubt there'd be many people arguing for that.

He didn't say it was contrary to the system, he said it was dangerous to the system. Performing actions which endanger the system is revolutionary I'd say, so if being sexist and racist and violent is dangerous to the system, being NazBol is the most revolutionary position.
I'd agree that such acts are contrary to the system, but I fail to see how they're dangerous to it.

I agree with you and this is probably an example of a point that Ted didn't come to a sensible position on however I definitely think sexism and racism represent inefficiencies in the system that it's in the interests of capital to get rid of. It should still be in our interests as leftists to get rid of these things (for totally different reasons than capital) but getting rid of them does make the system work smoother and we should remain aware of that. I think that's the best point you can take from Ted on the issue.

He was basically saying the capitalism is egalitarian and has accepted black, gays, women and wants to absorb them into the system. More black executives, more women CEO's. Capitalism is fine with minorities as long as they arent agitating against capitalism.
The mainstream media frames liberals as the rebels of society but they in fact the enforcers of the status quo.

What capitalism does not like is violence, it doesnt like anything that might threaten the status quo. And this is extremism, whether it be racist, sexist, religious.

The left is easily suppressed by identity politics, any revolutionary group that is a threat is subdued through the use of divisive idpol from liberals
The entire system is built to suppress any actual threats to capitalism whether it be from the far right or far left.

The neoliberal globalists despise tradition, they want open borders because this means more consumers.
The system wants to destroy all traditions, peoples, nations, and turn them into a soulless mush of consumerists

The system needs you to be a feminized docile consumer, what Nietzsche called "the last man"

Teddy boy was streets ahead of everyone. He was basically describing idpol and the modern age in a cabin way back when. I wonder what he thinks now. I wonder if he thinks there as any hope left.

Stop posting dumb surrogate activity pictures in my thread you dumb weeb. Kaczynski is way above the level of retarded nerds like you, you are so immersed in the technological system that anything said here would just fly over you before you go back to watching anime.

Not him, but I'm pulling out my /a/ folder just for this post.

Spoiler alert: We didn't, to quote Mark Fisher: "The Terminator was there from the start, distributing microchips to accelerate its advent."

He was also saying that society makes you feel powerless. And this powerlessness makes you feel like rebelling. And you dont know what to rebel against. So the system steers you to rebelling against racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. And that the activists are actually doing the job of helping the system maintain the status quo by clearing the system of violent threats. And the far right does not blame capitalism for the destruction of traditions but the activists.
The flaws in this plan are when a war happens and the liberal enforcers oppose the war to be against imperialism, colonialism, and all that shit.

Fuck off weeb bug man. Reported.

This, leftists and commies are all useful idiots for the system. Weak effeminate over socialized faggots.

Where was that? I need to read him again. He was my first radical political awakening .

A book of his papers got published recently.

...

He was basically calling right wingers idiots too

You are living proof that Kaczynski was right. He speaks about you when he discusses all the over socialized leftists.


Exactly this is why radical traditionalism is the only true way for TOTAL revolt against the system!

The way he describes oversocialized liberals is perfect prediction to what a cancer reddit/twitter/sjws would become

...

He said that right wingers were idiots because technology destroys traditions so if they were really pro tradition they would be anprims

Close but that's not the right answer.
youtube.com/watch?v=DcfEAY-Gt7E

Says the weeb bug man too busy with his passive surrogate activity to even notice his increasing enslavement to the technological system.


You dont know what radical traditionalism is. Many of the sentiments of Kaczynski can be seen in Oswald Spengler in his writings on the subject of technology decades prior. Most leftists dont care about demolishing the technological system and Ted Kaczynski is NOT a an Anprim. theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

...

Do you know what words mean?

Ted is an anprim, he just isnt an idiot who romanticizes brown tribal people. He knows the reality of tribal life is brutal, violent, misogynist.

When the industrial system fails you will die unless you give up your decadent life style and learn to live off the land and reject the pacifiers of modern society.

I rest my case.


That must be why he has repeatedly denied association with them.

A fool who was just mad he won't get to enjoy holodecks and cybernetics. Land will be proved right, and Teddy's faggot ass can do nothing but get devoured. Ave Machina!

It's too bad he conflated liberals with Leftists. Should have read some Marx.

...

well, for most people, they may as well be the same thing.

Maybe instead assuming I'm not on board with destroying industrial civilization. Maybe you should deal with my point of pointing out that Radical Traditionalism sounds like an oxymoron.

Pretty sure he knew the difference between liberalism and leftism


225. These phenomena appeared clearly in Russia and other countries that were taken over by leftists. Similarly, before the breakdown of communism in the USSR, leftish types in the West would seldom criticize that country. If prodded they would admit that the USSR did many wrong things, but then they would try to find excuses for the communists and begin talking about the faults of the West. They always opposed Western military resistance to communist aggression. Leftish types all over the world vigorously protested the U.S. military action in Vietnam, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan they did nothing. Not that they approved of the Soviet actions; but because of their leftist faith, they just couldn’t bear to put themselves in opposition to communism. Today, in those of our universities where “political correctness” has become dominant, there are probably many leftish types who privately disapprove of the suppression of academic freedom, but they go along with it anyway.

226. Thus the fact that many individual leftists are personally mild and fairly tolerant people by no means prevents leftism as a whole form having a totalitarian tendency.

227. Our discussion of leftism has a serious weakness. It is still far from clear what we mean by the word “leftist.” There doesn’t seem to be much we can do about this. Today leftism is fragmented into a whole spectrum of activist movements. Yet not all activist movements are leftist, and some activist movements (e.g., radical environmentalism) seem to include both personalities of the leftist type and personalities of thoroughly un-leftist types who ought to know better than to collaborate with leftists. Varieties of leftists fade out gradually into varieties of non-leftists and we ourselves would often be hard-pressed to decide whether a given individual is or is not a leftist. To the extent that it is defined at all, our conception of leftism is defined by the discussion of it that we have given in this article, and we can only advise the reader to use his own judgment in deciding who is a leftist.

the Thought of Ted "Unabomber" Kac

well for one thing soviets never carped bombed anything in Afghanistan, they preferred precision airstrikes

Most people are autistic

way to ruin the flow and mood

You're not even the OP, dipshit. Stop derailing MY thread with your autistic sperg-outs.

It's almost like things change and society/history/problems aren't static.

The Netflix series about him is really good.

Commodification truly has no mercy.

Infanticide is the mainstream user

Kaczynski's Neo-Luddite framework is shortsighted. Societal organization will not be negated, as a whole, through any individual opposition (in this case, the ideological character of the individual, which can easily be conditioned by a "system"). The populace is not collectively against the industrial complex, nor would they initiate the destruction of so, therefore diminishing the possibility of industrial society's demise. The only situation of industrial society potentially disassembling is through the destruction of organizational networks as a whole. This will not occur in any pursuit of industrial regression, and will only occur in an evolution of the social organization.

There is nothing to “assume”, you have already inadvertently revealed your attraction to film with your choice of reaction pic which is a useless meaningless surrogate activity only meant to fill in for what is traditionally satisfied by survival, just like the use of anime reaction pic reveals the attraction to anime, another production of the industrial system that is worthless.

His critique of technology is easily agreeable with but most of shit is just Elliot Rodger-tier virginism. The dude got mental after MK-Ultra and started blowing innocent people up because that will somehow make the world anprim.
Daily reminder that those twig&berry faggots are useless

I didn't realize so many here are so critical of technology, why is that? Is it its current method of being produced or what?

we aren't critical of technology as technological development will eventually bring about fully automated space gommunism

Yeah it really does ruin the flow and mood when you come into a thread about Kaczynski only to be confronted by more surrogate activity mascots posted by pretenders.

No one actually believes that though.

kek

Ted has basically said that technology benefits the left because it destroys traditions and makes it easier to be big brother.
He also said that any ideology based on the past and nature like anprim shouldnt be left wing

I dont hate technology but i think its important to be critical of the effects it has on society, for better or worse.

I have no intrest in living in the woods. But ted made a lot of good points and technology isnt some ultra positive freeing thing. It can fuck society up and be used for bad too

Because we already live in the most all-encompassing surveillance state of all time, and soon technological development will make control so total that escape will become impossible.

Everyone ITT needs to read Manna by Marshall Brain.

It's not technology what makes a society good or bad, but how humans decide collectively to use it. We can have fully automated luxury communism or fully automated elite capitalism through liquidation of the ex-working class.

You aren’t fooling anybody.

So Ted is immediately wall material, thanks.

based

is that fucking Heidegger?

...

based, what text is this from

Anprims are dumb and wrong (Stop wearing glasses tier dumb) but his power process is very weak. Reads like watered down Nietzsche and Freud. He ought to read Bordiga or Pynchon.

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

I'm not anti-tech, but I recognize the ill effects it exacerbates on social behavior under capitalism.

And you have inadvertently revealed your attraction to imageboards (and so computers) with your post, which is a meaningless surrogate activity, another production of the industrial system that is worthless.

Technological progress that isn't democratically controlled is bad news. Until such time as certain uses of new technologies aren't forced on people by market mechanisms or used just to bolster state power, I'd rather people just focused on basic research.

HE IS LITTERALY ADVOCATING THIS YOU DUMB FUCK! Have you read anything of him besides the fucking manifesto?

Not only am I aware of this, I was also summarizing the situation of disassembly to reveal the inadequacy of it actually occurring. Do you really believe multi-level hierarchies would simply collapse through the process of individual disassembly, whether that would involve a certain substrate in the hierarchy, not dissimilar to a business conglomerate, or the "primary ledger" of funds via one organization. This would be absurd, for one thing, to suggest a procedure of simultaneously dissassembling multiple organizational systems. Considering the futility of a populace, that would be wholly conjoined to this hierarchy, this situation is unattainable.