Read the Unabomber manifesto

his name is Uncle Ted
barely related

Im going to bump this.. because Ted threads usually wind up decent.. but god fucking damn it OP atleast pretent you didnt just arrive here from reddit.

...

He was a lone wolf. He was part of the MKULTRA program but this fucked him up in inadvertent ways. The CIA didn't plan his bombing or manifesto.

He really didn't. Normies know him as "just some insane serial killer". Plus-normies know him as "some leftist environmentalist nut".

How much of his actual philosophy got through to normal people who heard about him? Next to zero.

How much of his analysis of leftism got through to normal people who heard about him? Absolutely zero, and his analysis of leftism was the best part of the manifesto, better than his warmed-over Ellul stuff.

The people who would look into it WOULD LOOK INTO IT ANYWAY. It's just as often that people come up with conspiracies about "The elite WANT the youth to become Satanic, so they put out Manson".

The rationale of this kind of stuff needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. I think TK was clearly a damaged individual who went a bit nuts in the woods, and his isolation resulted in a flawed roll-out of his philosophy. It's as simple as that. The guy was really smart and had some good insights, but he had so few social skills that somehow he thought killing random people in the tech industry would have been enough to spark a revolution.

He honestly would have done better if he had stayed in academia but changed his focus to the anti-technology philosophy stuff. Chomsky is known for his politics but his accredited expertise is elsewhere. Same with Bill Nye for that matter. TK could have been the anti-Kurzwell as far as public intellectuals went.

But I guess he was too fundamentally antisocial anyway.

Where can I find google for my library?

ur a retord

jews aren't White.

sage cause unsure if this thread is any good

it doesnt seem to be.

is there a bunker yet?

Jesus fucking Christ, user. You do know they track what you search, right?

Calling everything MKUltra or false flag is what stupid people do because they can't comprehend complicated ideas

Kaczynski was a man trapped in a progressive technological world that realised how it brought about everything he despised. How could someone not go insane in that position?

He was written off as a lunatic and a mad man. He was not crazy, he was a fanatic. There is a significant difference yet people find it much easier to make it through the day thinking that killing people is always wrong and anybody who opposes "progress" is crazy and media panders to the stupid.

Lets make it good then. Lets explore WHY leftist hate everything good, what it means and how we can best counter them.

To do so I'll start with in the middle. Slave morality. If you've read Nietzche's Towards a Genealogy of Morals you know this concept, but you've probably heard of it any, it's a pretty famous idea.

For those who have not read the book the idea is simple. Those who are at the extreme top of society, the nobles, think differently than those at the extreme bottom, the slave, he set out to explore this difference and how it came about.

His conclusion was that the noble's morality was based on the idea of good vs bad. The noble, of course, was good. So naturally things like him and the things he enjoyed were also good. Having money is good, a loving family is good, owning slaves is good. Things he did not like were bad. Being poor is bad, getting a broken leg is bad, a wolf eating your chickens is bad. The wolf is not evil. He's a wolf, he eats small animals, but him eating your animals is bad for you. The noble lives a life of self-actualization. He can become an artist, a musician, a builder. He also thrives on being great at what he does. If you have all the time in the world to learn to be a musician you damn well better become great at it. He also thrives on competition and sport, of course losing is bad, but there is no animosity if he loses, he shakes the hand of the winner and looks forward to the next game.

The slave, on the other hand, spends his entire life simply doing as he is told. His life is defined by the fact that he's a slave. He, of course, is good, but has nothing in common with the noble. The slave thinks in terms of good and evil. Slavery is evil. The slave owner is evil. As a result he defines his morality reactively where the noble defined his proactively. If making slaves do all of your work is evil, then working hard is good. If beating slaves is bad, then being a pacifist is good. The slave takes no pride in his work. He does not care if it's done well or quickly, he only cares that he looks busy so the master does not punish him. So long as his evil master exists he has no possibility of any self-actualization so the slave hates the master and would do anything to destroy him.

The question is how does this system work for those who are free, but not noble. It may seem paradoxical, but these moral systems are not mutually exclusive. Certainly the noble can view a Mongol horde that's raping and murdering everyone as evil and head off to destroy them. The slave does not see blisters as evil just bad. So a blacksmith may think of his profession as noble, but still see the local gang running a protection racket to be evil. He sees not having a trade skill as bad, but certainly not evil. Like so many other things these two moral system coexist on a spectrum.

I'm sure you've already figured out how this applies to modern politics. I find it more meaningful to replace morality with identity. The right identifies themselves by what they are. The left by what they are not. Identifying as gay is really identifying as not straight. Identifying as black is really identifying as not white. Blacks are always talking about how evil whites are and whites simply think of blacks as bad.

As with our blacksmith, people in modern society have the opportunity to swing in either direction. The more they self-actualize the more they swing right. The less they have going on in their lives the more likely they are to resort to this kind of negative identity. Dr Ben Carson, for example, does not need to identify as being not white because he can identify as a successful surgeon and politician. This explains why we see a shift towards conservatism in people who are older and people with families. It also reveals the toxicity of our schools, by failing to give children any valuable skills so they can self-actualize they are pushed towards leftism.

(1/3)

Now lets start at the beginning and consider what defines a leftist, why are they a slave.

I think Evan Sayet's Universal Theory of Liberalism is on the right track.

Leftists think discrimination is wrong. This is the defining factor. Again this is a spectrum. Everyone thinks discriminating is wrong when done for no reason or out of spite, but leftists over apply this concept and the far right actively works to discriminate more.

Discrimination leads to success. If you don't discriminate about what job you take or where you live you'll end up in a bad job or a bad home. No one thinks it makes sense to randomly marry just anyone. Your family will be a disaster. A successful person will choose the best spouse, the best job and the best home they possibly can.

Leftists on the other hand, as they purity spiral, start to think any sort of discrimination is bad. You can't refuse to date that person just because you're not gay! That would be discrimination. You can't tell that armless person he can't arm wrestle. You can't tell that woman she can't be in the army. You can't tell that man he can't compete in women's sports and so on.

You also can't discriminate against winners and losers. Everyone needs to get a trophy. You can't discriminate against criminals and terrorists, so you should let child molesters look after your children otherwise you're bad. This is why they always choose the wrong side. They are trying to bring the weak up to the level of the strong and the strong down to the level of the weak even though in many cases that's impossible.

They also can't discriminate against beliefs. So fact's can't matter. Christianity is objectively less oppressive than Islam and therefore objectively better. This is discrimination so it's wrong, therefore they have to say Islam is just as good because they feel like it is.

Since they can't pick between a belief they are basically nihilists. Nothing matters. There is no higher purpose but to serve equality.

(2/3)

In Ted's case, it genuinely was MKULTRA.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Murray

Not to say he wasn't right though, MKULTRA doesn't always drive one mad. Ken Kesey was quite sane after taking Government LSD and even went on to write fiction regarding the evils of psychiatry.

So this is where we come back to slave morality. The farther left you are the more you MUST base your entirety on the slave the negative definition. Because discrimination would lead to noble morality.

Sadly when you define yourself in a negative way like this you can't actually win the battle against evil without losing your identity, so you must, after each victory, turn to lesser or made up evils. BLM defines itself as fighting evil whites, but they'll hopefully never win. This allows them to never amount to anything so long as they occasionally do some damage. Feminists won the equality they demanded, so those who had other things going on in their lives abandoned the movement, those who had nothing else needed a new evil so their demands grow more petty and insane with each victory.

Evil is always victimization although in the slave's case it's specifically victimization through oppression. The reason they hate success is that you have to have discriminated to get it. Therefore you are evil. They always side with failures and losers because in order to be a failure in the mind of the leftist they must be oppressed. The reason Cultural Marxism is so cancerous is that it equates beauty, tradition or even just being normal with oppression. This allows the slave mindset to engage. This would be bad enough on it's own, since once you define yourself by something it very hard to undefine yourself, but there is an additional, more dangerous effect. Branding something as evil allows you to hate. The two really go hand in hand. Those who torture animals or rape infants most people would consider evil. We'd also hate them. If there is a case these concepts exist separately I can't think of an instance offhand.

Hate, like all emotions, serves a purpose. Powerful emotions, like love and hate, suppresses important systems our minds use on a day to day basis, often to the point of disabling them completely. We all have an instinct for self-preservation, but love can disable it, causing us to run into a burning building to save our children or jump on a handgrenade to save our comrades. Hate on the other hand, suppresses our ability to sympathize with our target. It also suppresses our outrage over hypocrisy. Sure it's hypocritical to see someone who raped once raped a thousand times in prison, but we don't care. Fighting evil is always the moral high ground. It should come as no surprise to us then that Cutlural Marxists are unrepentantly hypocritical and unsympathetic to their victims.

The battle against evil also explains the progressive stack. In the earlier example of our noble riding off to battle the Mongol hordes who would his slaves support? The noble or the Mongol? Logic would dictate the noble, since Mongols would just as happily rape and kill the slaves as anyone else, while good/bad is a mostly rational dichotomy good/evil is a mostly emotional one. The slaves will side with the Mongols. In the mind of the slave the Mongols are fighting the same evil as the slave is: the master. Any slave who sides with the master, or defends him in any way is siding with evil and therefore evil himself. This is why leftists always eat themselves. This is why they will always side with someone who claims to be a victim. The victimizers are necessarily evil. It should also come as no surprise that Cultural Marxists will always side with Muslim terrorists and other non-white invaders since they've falsely labeled the white Christian working class as oppressors.

You would think Jews would have a noble mindset, after all they believe themselves to be the chosen ones, but they have trapped themselves with their victim narrative. They can not be proud, they are oppressed, they only know hate. Imagined offenses such as the holocaust make up so much of who they are. Their hatred and desire to destroy is consuming the planet. It should come as no surprise then that from this maelstrom of victim narratives spews forth more victim based ideologies such as feminism and Cultural Marxism. Luckily this also makes them likely to adopt these ideologies and destroy themselves.

It's hard to look at the noble/slave issue and not think the noble is the better of the two. If you define better by more powerful, then that's not true. There is great power in hate. I see the rise of altright and altlite as more and more people coming to terms with leftists being evil. They've victimized so many and done so much damage. They show no sign of stopping through reason or moderate means. Hate our failsafe against destructive insanity.

(3/4)

Nietsche's interest in all of this was related to Christianity. The very concept of slave morality arose from Christians because they quite literally were slaves and developed the religion as a justification for having the values that made you into a good slave. If you've been paying attention it should be obvious that slaves need an enemy. As with all slaves Christianity is strong when it's battling evil, weak when it has no one to fight. Herein lies the solution. Our task, as I see it is to correctly identify our enemies as evil. Muslims, Jews, Marxists. They are not just wrong. They are not misguided. They are evil forces working to destroy all that is good in this world. Pure evil, nothing more. Such an easy task, we only need to get the truth out.

To win we must take on the slave mindset. Set aside our nobility. We must define ourselves not by what we are, but by what we are not. We must accept that we are oppressed by your enemies. We must tirelessly label the oppressors and victimizers as such. We must fight evil. God is good and stands against evil. God is on your side. Destroy the evil, only then can you go back to living as a noble.

(4/4)

bumping a ted bread

lel