![gal-unibomber-mugshot-jpg[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/NK3mlMi.jpg "gal-unibomber-mugshot-jpg[1].jpg")
/pol what do you think of the Ted Kaczynski's manifesto?
It's blowing my mind right now.
like to the full manifesto (its large but worth)
http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt
Will try to give some TLDR if you are interested.
Fist chapters he proceeds to BTFO literally the whole leftist apparatus, to later BTFO the industrial system
He also BTFO conservatives for being retarded hypocrites. They claim to want traditional values, but at the same time they support capitalism and free markets which totally undermines said values.
Will be posting what im reading now
116. Because of the constant pressure that the system exerts to modify
human behavior, there is a gradual increase in the number of people
who cannot or will not adjust to society's requirements: welfare
leeches, youth-gang members, cultists, anti-government rebels, radical
environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts and resisters of various kinds.
>>67605630
Interesting Indeed..
Him and Manson were both cool.
Manson was way fucking handsomer though.
>>67606161
True, he does it rapidly and abruptly, he call the conservatives fools, while he never uses this word when mentioning the leftists
>>67605630
>M A T H W I Z A R D
>>67606215
He is truly a visionary man
Ted Kaczynski was a prodigy turned professor who swallowed the largest red pill of them all and went mad from the truth.
something something good will hunting
>>67605630
I've only read the parts on leftists and I completely agree. Not sure if I'll agree with the rest though.
>>67605630
Here is the leftist stuff for people who don't want to read the whole thing.
117. In any technologically advanced society the individual's fate
MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any
great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into
small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the
cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a
society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that
affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a
million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the
average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What
usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public
officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but
even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters
ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be
significant. [17] Thus most individuals are unable to influence
measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. Their is no
conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society.
The system tries to "solve" this problem by using propaganda to make
people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if
this "solution" were completely successful in making people feel
better, it would be demeaning.
>>67606292
Have you never seen young Ted Kaczynski? I would beg to differ with your analysis.
>>67605630
Youngest ever professor at Berkeley. One of the top mathematicians in the world. Was the top student in WVO Quine's philosophy class.
>>67605630
>Will try to give some TLDR if you are interested.
Ted's manifesto is short enough. Those that are even interested in taking the time to read it are often those who are willing to consider its content. Just my two cents.
If you found the manifesto valuable, I strongly recommend the book "Technological Slavery". It contains the manifesto along with a great deal of his other writings.
>>67605630
Recently read parts of it. I was amazed how smart the guy was. Growing up as a young kid in the 90s and then only really seeing the mugshot over and over, I had just assumed it was some crazy fuckwit sending pipe bombs everywhere.
almost makes it scarier that he was so well educated, rather than just some deranged lunatic
>>67606839
Differ away.
>>67606744
I highly recommend reading the whole thing, the leftist stuff is just a start for the redpill, its just a explaining on how people are today to later explain how the society works
>>67605630
I actually just finished doing a 27 page paper on him. I suggest reading Alston Chase's Harvard and the Unabomer. Goes into the philosophic basis for a lot of it.
>>67606941
Thread theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwI-6_WMX8Q
what did this guy even do?
Make a small bomb and a crappy homemade gun?
What was his crimes even?
>>67605630
I would love to read it, but he says the one everyone says is his, is fake.
>>67606750
thanks based anon
>>67607440
3 dead 28 wounded. He started with pipe bombs, his last two bombs were high explosive he made himself shaped around a charge.
"...we no longer have to confine the explosive in a pipe, we are now free of limitations on the size and shape of our bombs....we know how to increase the power of our explosives...we expect to be able to pack deadly bombs into ever smaller, lighter and more harmless looking packages. On the other hand, we believe we will be able to make bombs much bigger than any we've made before. With a briefcase-full or a suitcase-full of explosives we should be able to blow out the walls of substantial buildings."
That was him gloating in a letter to the New York Times. Outsmarted the FBI for 17 years. His brother turned him in after reading Industrial Society and Its Future.
>>67606750
he wouldve spat on you. do not use his words to purport your own flawed vision on life. the entire context is necessary
https://youtu.be/nUEwTMIB2Xc
>>67607727
Where did he say this?
This is one of the parts he magistrarly describes how history of revolutions work:
1/6
SOME PRINCIPLES OF HISTORY
99. Think of history as being the sum of two components: an erratic
component that consists of unpredictable events that follow no
discernible pattern, and a regular component that consists of
long-term historical trends. Here we are concerned with the long-term
trends.
100. FIRST PRINCIPLE. If a SMALL change is made that affects a
long-term historical trend, then the effect of that change will almost
always be transitory - the trend will soon revert to its original
state. (Example: A reform movement designed to clean up political
corruption in a society rarely has more than a short-term effect;
sooner or later the reformers relax and corruption creeps back in. The
level of political corruption in a given society tends to remain
constant, or to change only slowly with the evolution of the society.
Normally, a political cleanup will be permanent only if accompanied by
widespread social changes; a SMALL change in the society won't be
enough.) If a small change in a long-term historical trend appears to
be permanent, it is only because the change acts in the direction in
which the trend is already moving, so that the trend is not altered
but only pushed a step ahead.
101. The first principle is almost a tautology. If a trend were not
stable with respect to small changes, it would wander at random rather
than following a definite direction; in other words it would not be a
long-term trend at all.
>>67605630
You can read it and appreciate it as long as you don't go fucking crazy like his dumb ass.
>>67607011
I'm a fan of technology, but i do plan on reading the rest. I just haven't had time.
>>67608010
>3 dead 28 wounded
that's it, after 17 years? what a loser.
>>67608211
102. SECOND PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is sufficiently large
to alter permanently a long-term historical trend, than it will alter
the society as a whole. In other words, a society is a system in which
all parts are interrelated, and you can't permanently change any
important part without change all the other parts as well.
103. THIRD PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is large enough to
alter permanently a long-term trend, then the consequences for the
society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance. (Unless various
other societies have passed through the same change and have all
experienced the same consequences, in which case one can predict on
empirical grounds that another society that passes through the same
change will be like to experience similar consequences.)
104. FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot be designed on
paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance,
then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to.
>>67608314
105. The third and fourth principles result from the complexity of
human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of
a society and its physical environment; the economy will affect the
environment and vice versa, and the changes in the economy and the
environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways;
and so forth. The network of causes and effects is far too complex to
be untangled and understood.
106. FIFTH PRINCIPLE. People do not consciously and rationally choose
the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of
social evolution that are not under rational human control.
107. The fifth principle is a consequence of the other four.
108. To illustrate: By the first principle, generally speaking an
attempt at social reform either acts in the direction in which the
society is developing anyway (so that it merely accelerates a change
that would have occurred in any case) or else it only has a transitory
effect, so that the society soon slips back into its old groove. To
make a lasting change in the direction of development of any important
aspect of a society, reform is insufficient and revolution is
required. (A revolution does not necessarily involve an armed uprising
or the overthrow of a government.) By the second principle, a
revolution never changes only one aspect of a society; and by the
third principle changes occur that were never expected or desired by
the revolutionaries. By the fourth principle, when revolutionaries or
utopians set up a new kind of society, it never works out as planned.
>>67608370
109. The American Revolution does not provide a counterexample. The
American "Revolution" was not a revolution in our sense of the word,
but a war of independence followed by a rather far-reaching political
reform. The Founding Fathers did not change the direction of
development of American society, nor did they aspire to do so. They
only freed the development of American society from the retarding
effect of British rule. Their political reform did not change any
basic trend, but only pushed American political culture along its
natural direction of development. British society, of which American
society was an off-shoot, had been moving for a long time in the
direction of representative democracy. And prior to the War of
Independence the Americans were already practicing a significant
degree of representative democracy in the colonial assemblies. The
political system established by the Constitution was modeled on the
British system and on the colonial assemblies. With major alteration,
to be sure - there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers took a very
important step. But it was a step along the road the English-speaking
world was already traveling. The proof is that Britain and all of its
colonies that were populated predominantly by people of British
descent ended up with systems of representative democracy essentially
similar to that of the United States. If the Founding Fathers had lost
their nerve and declined to sign the Declaration of Independence, our
way of life today would not have been significantly different. Maybe
we would have had somewhat closer ties to Britain, and would have had
a Parliament and Prime Minister instead of a Congress and President.
No big deal. Thus the American Revolution provides not a
counterexample to our principles but a good illustration of them.
>>67606839
Manson is a better singer and song writer tho. And Manson isn't an intellectual. I think mansions insight comes from trying to understand how his mythos formed. He never killed anyone and is somehow the biggest boogeyman right under Hitler himself.
>>67606750
I don't like how /pol/sters have this saved as if he's one of you.
He wants to end capitalism, the state and go back to a pre-agricultural way of life.
You don't see /pol/ talking about John Zerzan or Derrick Jensen do you?
>>67606591
He took a red suppository. It is possible to OD on those things.
>>67605630
Anyone who supports this guy is a dickhead.
Ted is violent criminal who targeted random people based on some bizarre belief system.
Anyone who lived out in a shack and spent his free time making letter bombs can't be taken seriously, no matter how eloquent he happens to be.
>>67608520
I'm just saying Ted was better looking. Manson looks exactly like my uncle, though.
>>67608218
How did he go "crazy"?
>>67605630
uncle ted was a little too redpilled t.b.h.
>>67608537
>implying most /pol/acks wouldn't appreciate Thomas Jefferson's emphasis on agrarian life.
>>67608300
the US has a big story of giving overly extreme sentences for people with a political and dangerous message like his.
yeah unibomber doesnt sound that cool
so he had a hobby to occasionally mail some bombs to people (lobbyists, university professors, computer store owners).
usually sending like 1 bomb every few years, sometimes 2 or 3 a year.
I don't really respect that behavior desu
>>67608721
You can't endorse his methods of blindly lashing out at the system that created him.However, the belief system isn't bizarre. Some actually called it an academic cliche as so many of the ideas have very deep roots.
>>67609200
Do you know why those particular people were targeted?
>>67605630
nailed leftists
>>67608537
I only really enjoy the happening threads here. I desperately need civilization as we know it to change in a big catastrophic way.
TLDR:
Ted makes the case that you can't have freedom and technology at the same time.
And that you cannot separate the bad and the good of technology because of its needed systematic apparatus to continue to evolve and function.
Therefore society cannot be free unless there is a stop in technological advancement.
Thus the more technology the less freedom.
>>67609207
>the belief system isn't bizarre.
You're right. It's not bizarre; it's downright insane.
Ted is nuts.
I'm glad he's in jail, and hope anyone who buys into his bullshit ends up right there with him.
>>67608537
>You don't see /pol/ talking about John Zerzan or Derrick Jensen do you?
Those guys are leftists even if they try to label themselves otherwise.
Besides, Zerzan wants to go full tribal, pre-writing, pre-language, pre-domestication, whereas Kaczynski really just views the industrial revolution as the issue.
>>67608537
>I don't like how /pol/sters have this saved as if he's one of you.
Why would /pol/ want to be associated with terrorists?
also
Anarcho primitivism a shit.
>>67608066
Fanboy.
>>67608739
He's not crazy, by law any way. Public opinion is another matter. He decided to lash out at the system. He endured three years of psychological abuse and testing (interrogation techniques) at the hands of a CIA connected psychologist, Henry Murray.
"True I would not fit into the present society in any case but that is not an intolerable situation. What makes a situation intolerable is the fact that in all probability, the values that I detest, will soon be achieved through science, an utterly complete and permanent victory throughout the whole world, with a total extrication of everything I value…. It's not merely the fact that I cannot fit into society that has induced me to rebel, as violently as I have, it is the fact that I can see society made possible by science inexorably imposing on-me."
>>67609207
its cliche alright, i read some pages. sounds like obvious observations to me
has he ever said anything on human experimentation, of which he was part of? a government doing that has worse implications than any of that leftist, rightist, techno slavery , etc. bs
Redpill for those into genetics
Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of
the technological system, it would by itself bring certain evils.
Suppose for example that a cure for diabetes is discovered. People
with a genetic tendency to diabetes will then be able to survive and
reproduce as well as anyone else. Natural selection against genes for
diabetes will cease and such genes will spread throughout the
population. (This may be occurring to some extent already, since
diabetes, while not curable, can be controlled through the use of
insulin.) The same thing will happen with many other diseases
susceptibility to which is affected by genetic degradation of the
population. The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or
extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the
future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God
(depending on your religious or philosophical opinions), but a
manufactured product.
>>67609630
James Q. Wilson (who was mentioned in the Manifesto" wrote in The New York Times during Kaczynski's trial
“There is nothing in the manifesto that looks at all like the work of a madman. The language is clear, precise and calm. The argument is subtle and carefully developed, lacking anything even faintly resembling the wild claims or irrational speculation that a lunatic might produce… If it is the work of a madman, then the writings of many political philosophers – Jean Jacques Rousseau, Tom Paine, Karl Marx -- are scarcely more sane."
>>67606161
>They claim to want traditional values, but at the same time they support capitalism and free markets which totally undermines said values.
But that's wrong.
>>67610040
123. If you think that big government interferes in your life too much
NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic
constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow
the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the
consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous.
The unabomber was radicalized by the government mind control project MKUltra. Google MKUltra
He's like a real-life cartoon villain
Except that he has a coherent and pretty rational manifesto
He's a good read
>>67606348
Because malicious people accept what they are getting into ,reactionaries are taking a Faustian bargain thinking otherwise.
>>67610298
The usual response to such concerns is to talk about "medical
ethics." But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in
the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code
of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means
of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody
(probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that such and
such applications of genetic engineering were "ethical" and others
were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on
the genetic constitution of the population at large.
>>67610040
None of what you stated are "certain evils"
There is literally nothing wrong with eugenics in the grand scheme of things and genetic engineering is inevitable.
>>67610242
Because things get so much better every year right?
>>67610534
>genetic engineering is inevitable.
I think that's exactly what Kaczynski was getting at.
I wouldn't say he's against "traditional" leave-the-diseased-baby-outside eugenics, though.
>>67605630
Remember folks, when manipulation of your future child's intelligence is possible, they're gonna go with a 90 IQ EVERY TIME. Why would Soros and co. want smart plebs?
>>67609845
I haven't come him speaking about human experimentation but he talks about man being changed to better fit the needs of the system rather than changing the system to better fit the needs of man. Henry Murray the guy who did unethical experiment on him for three years had the alteration of man as his goal. He also saw it as the goal of all social sciences during the cold war. Murray wrote in Explorations in Personality
"Man is to-day's great problem … by what means can he be intentionally transformed?...There are many who believe that an understanding of human nature is the great requirement of this age; that modern man is ' up against it,' confused, dis-satisfied, despairing and ready to regress; that what he needs is the power to change and redirect himself and others; and that the possession of this special power can only be won through knowledge. If it is true, as some reasonable men affirm, that cul-ture the best of man's high heritage is in jeopardy, and that to save and further it man, its creator and conserver, must be changed regenerated or developed differently from birth then the immediate requisite is a science of human nature."
More redpills how when new technologies emerge they are no longer optional:
127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom
often turns out to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it
very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A
walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace
without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of
technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced
they appeared to increase man's freedom. They took no freedom away
from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn't
want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel
much faster than the walking man. But the introduction of motorized
transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly
man's freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it
became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car,
especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one
likes at one's own pace one's movement is governed by the flow of
traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various
obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration,
insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on
purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer
optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the
arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority
of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of
employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that
they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they
must use public transportation, in which case they have even less
control over their own movement than when driving a car.
1/2
>>67611470
2/2
Even the
walker's freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually
has to stop and wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to
serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous
and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note the important point we
have illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item
of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept
or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many
cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people
eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)
>>67610534
he makes exactly this point that it is inevitable in a technologically driven society
>>67609786
>He endured three years of psychological abuse and testing (interrogation techniques) at the hands of a CIA
this happened to Ted ?
>>67610414
good point
>>67611934
He was a mkultra. Guinea pig, they were testing LSD during the same period so that may have been entailed.
>>67611934
he was subjected to tests for project MK Ultra... allegedly
>>67610914
Will they? Why not have workers that can do more computer programming, scientific study and overall be more efficient on his job?
>>67611585
like goddam cellphones
i miss pre-cellphone era
>>67609642
living in mongolia is pretty much as close as you can get to what he was talking about
>>67611934
Yes. Henry Murray worked for the OSS the forerunner of the CIA and maintained a cozy relationship after the war. During the Cold war the CIA and other government agencies provided nearly 50% of research funding for universities. Murray specialized in Interrogation techniques and his experiments resembled this. Ted was pushed hard by his parents from a very young age. He entered Harvard at 16, he actually need parental permission to enter the testing. His mother “was glad to give my parental consent, feeling that Teddy had some adjustment issues. I hoped these nice psychologists might help him.” Harvard and what he endured there shaped Ted.
Also looking at murray you can see where he got some of his views. >>67611117
>>67605630
Try reading some real political theory instead of the ramblings of an extremely intelligent but undereducated man.
>>67605630
I'm actually reading it right now, about 2/3 through
He has some interesting ideas, certainly, but his ideas for fixing the problem are autistic tier
>convince everyone technology is bad
>abandon organized technology
>burn all technical books
>mfw
>>67605630
Why are you looking into a murderers manifesto? The man was crazy. Find something else to do with your time man...
>Uncle Ted threads
C O M F Y
>>67612743
lel, overcrowing with urbanization, desertification, stripping away of natural resources, decline of traditional life, rise of "gimme" capitalism.
Nope.
>>67612487
Of course they'll breed a select few for technical skills, but the majority of people will be mindless slaves. Intelligent people demand raises for their hard work, realize when they're being taken advantage of, and vote against globalist interests.
>>67613182
Has anyone here written to Ted? I'm sure you get put on a watch list but I'm curious if he responds to all letters.
>>67608010
>we
don't understand this part, he always refers to himself as "we"
does he have an imaginary friend?
>>67605630
its dribble, google for a rebuttal (I dont have the time but plenty of people have) and you'll see why - he was intelligent so it sounds great but its actually schizo tier joke material
>>67613307
I've heard he'll respond if your letter is interesting enough to warrant a response.
>>67608481
I agree with this very much. People like to forget that "being more British" was the popular trend leading right up to the revolution.
another thing people love to forget is how amazingly good the colonists had it compared to their counterparts across the pond in regards to taxation. It was seriously crippling to most back in Britain but in America it was laughable. (which makes sense considering the need to create attractive incentives for people to come over to the "New World" a hundred or so years earlier) A slight raise in taxes would help to ease the burden of some of those back home. And what do the colonists do? Throw a bunch of fucking tea in a harbor, engage in guerrilla warfare and scream about how bad their taxes are. It was greed. Plain and simple. We come from no moral high ground. We do not stand for some bright beacon of government representation being demanded or otherwise taken. We were founded on petty greed and the need to create an issue to take our our aggression in a rather perfect world (at that time)
>>67608739
MKULTRA program while at harvard, supposedly
him being underage at the time could have been a factor, he was admitted at 16
>>67613393
Yeah, FC or Freedom Club - just an attempt to trick the police/public into thinking it was more than one person.
Jesus Christ this entire thread is filled with 14 year-olds discovering this guy for the first time.
Listen, you fucking dipshits, I don't care how great or redpilled or genius or whatever other god damn adjective you want to use to describe it, his "manifesto" is bullshit and he's human garbage. Waste. He is the shit on the toilet paper you wipe your ass with.
Teddy boy here is a terrorist and a hypocrite who can go fuck himself to death for all I care.
His message is fucking retarded. Sitting here quoting this bullshit. With one hand he wrote against technology and big government and telling people what to do and how to live, and with the other hand he was making pipe bombs and killing people because they didn't agree with the way he thought people should live or to "wake people up" and get them to follow how he thought they should live.
This fucking bullshit ass thread. Every fucking time. Glorifying this retard. He's a hypocrite and a motherfuckin' terrorist.
If he had any actual balls on him or any actual brains/wasn't totally fucking insane, he would have published his work and lectured and taught and tried to convert and convince people of his message like a person with rational thought. But nope. Not Teddy.
Fuck Ted Kaczynski and fuck anyone that thinks this guy had or has anything important to say after he started fucking bombing people and anyone who thinks he's worth more than my last shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ-Upb4Szms
>>67611117
sounds like he is advocating the mental experimentation which he suffered,, to advance man. may be wrong sicne your text grmamar is fucked up
>>67613706
Next you'll tell me Timothy McVeigh did the wrong thing.
>>67613393
In his letter to the media he was pretending to be an organized group called FC. Freedom Club. Some assumed it meant Fuck Computers. It's a literary reference to FP. He dropped tons of them.
>>67613307
pretty damn rare
This gave me the chills reading up to this point
In paragraph 125 we used an analogy of a weak neighbor who is
left destitute by a strong neighbor who takes all his land by forcing
on him a series of compromises. But suppose now that the strong
neighbor gets sick, so that he is unable to defend himself. The weak
neighbor can force the strong one to give him his land back, or he can
kill him. If he lets the strong man survive and only forces him to
give his land back, he is a fool, because when the strong man gets
well he will again take all the land for himself. The only sensible
alternative for the weaker man is to kill the strong one while he has
the chance. In the same way, while the industrial system is sick we
must destroy it. If we compromise with it and let it recover from its
sickness, it will eventually wipe out all of our freedom.
>>67613706
>Teddy boy here is a terrorist
terrorist victim.
You do know his whole mental breakdown came from being subject to particularly nasty MK Ultra social experiments, right?
>>67613450
i mean, i know the guy is in prison and all, but theres something really fucking ironic about giving a convicted mail bomber your home fucking address just to see what he says.
>>67605630
Just read it today. That guy had figured out in 1996 what I only figured out in 2016.
>>67613706
>>wow. ok. sorry dad. ill get back to taking out the garbage.
fuck yourself
>>67605630
I think he's a boring man, if he really saw no desirable way forward for man except to retreat into low tech farming and hunting till the next meteor hits I think he should have just worked to get the world nuked. Maybe the next species has the psychological make-up to progress beyond that without a dystopian society.
>>67606941
Manson is literally 5'2. Shut the fuck up
>>67613706
>not being able to separate someones ideology from their actions
I doubt anyone here is actually idolizing the guy, or thinks his bombings were justified in anyway because they obviously weren't.
Doesn't mean he can't be right about some things, and your mental block on this just shows your own stupidity.
It made a pretty big impression on me during high school.
I wouldnt feel comfortable disputing its content, because I wouldnt want to give anyone an excuse to ignore it.
>>67613862
The quote there is from the guy who experimented on Ted. That's where I think ted got his views against altering man, because Murray was for altering man and tried to do it to him and other undergrads.
His manifesto isn't even that interesting. His equations he wrote regarding human interaction were fucking terrifying. It all essentially amounts to them being able to calculate and predict human behavior with super computers and thus control and anticipate our every move.
>>67613885
He did. And you can tell Gore Vidal I said so and Gore can go fuck himself, too.
>>67614307
Nah faggot. How's your mom's basement?
>>67613706
> I wonder consider the thoughts of anyone who is bad
Your loss.
>>67610242
>you can't make money wanting people to be moral, upstanding, and wait until marriage to have sex
>you can make a buck off letting someone watch two people fuck
>>67614397
>and your mental block on this just shows your own stupidity.
Nope. Yours does. How do you not see the hypocrisy in his actions?
>>67614498
There's hints of the idea of The Singularity there.
What's the current estimate 2040?
>>67614498
Yep, and thats already closer to reality than most would think.
With the advent of social media and monitoring of facebook likes, shopping habits, what you browse daily, what kind of music you listen to etc the NSA can probably tap entire crowds of people's smartphones and create a rough "crowd personality"
The future looks pretty fucked
>>67614498
He basically predicted how metadata would be used decades later to do just what he was talking about.
how is that not interesting? I get how it is terrifying, because it is. But the guy fucking called the ball how is that not interesting at least a little
>>67613307
...RARE?
.
.
.
R
A
R
E
?
>>67614634
It's okay, but not as salty as your place.
>>67614732
>can't separate ideas from the person
you're just a low IQ and emotional I guess
>>67614732
>How do you not see the hypocrisy in his actions?
Its simply not the point. I can understand why you would think he is hypocritical (you are wrong), but the problem is you use his hypocrisy as an excuse to ignore him. Which is despicable. You just arent intellectual if thats how you react.
>>67614732
Its not hypocrisy, he was mentally tortured and compartmentalized through his studies, so the system was literally conspiring against him and he had few alternatives but to become reclusive and lash out.
>>67614488
see? now thats scary. to think that there are people that think like that, nd have probably the means to cultivate humans in underground cities to continue their experimentations uninterrupted
who's to say this hasnt happened? mk ultra was like 70 years ago or something
advancing our itneligences through eugenics is our way to counter public manipulation and hopefully experimentation, by creating a true societal consciousness and not a dumb hivemind like it is right now
>>67614856
Yep. My place. Mine. Not my mom's. Certainly not as salty as Teddy boy's cabin.
>>67614877
lol. Keep tellin' yourself that, sweetheart.
>>67615172
Not wrong. He is 100% a hypocrite. Despicable? Just not intellectual? Give me a fucking break with that bullshit. Get the fuck outta here. "You just aren't intellectual..." Haha, holy fuck, listen to yourself.
Dumb motherfucker.
man I'm almost done reading and I must say, this is the most redpilled thing I have ever read to date
>>67615682
>Can only spew insults at everyone and can't even explain how and why Teddy was wrong
>muh hypocrisy
you need to calm down a little there bub
>>67615682
>He is 100% a hypocrite
And what if he was hypocritical, but he was right? What if he said something very insightful, but failed to comply himself?
If its the ideas that matter, why would it matter if he acts consistently with them?
Again 'hypocrisy' just your excuse. You dont have the intelligence, ambition, or courage to consider them.
R E D P I L L!
R
E
D
P
I
L
L
!
150. As we mentioned in paragraph 134, industrial society seems likely
to be entering a period of severe stress, due in part to problems of
human behavior and in part to economic and environmental problems. And
a considerable proportion of the system's economic and environmental
problems result from the way human beings behave. Alienation, low
self-esteem, depression, hostility, rebellion; children who won't
study, youth gangs, illegal drug use, rape, child abuse , other
crimes, unsafe sex, teen pregnancy, population growth, political
corruption, race hatred, ethnic rivalry, bitter ideological conflict
(i.e., pro-choice vs. pro-life), political extremism, terrorism,
sabotage, anti-government groups, hate groups. All these threaten the
very survival of the system. The system will be FORCED to use every
practical means of controlling human behavior.
>>67605630
>>67606161
He actually had a very high IQ like something in the 180s
>>67613307
how do I get his address ?
>>67615567
>he was mentally tortured
you're justifying terrorism
>>67615567
>compartmentalized through his studies
you're justifying terrorism
>>67615567
>so the system was literally conspiring against him
you're justifying terrorism
>>67615567
>he had few alternatives but to become reclusive and lash out.
you're justifying terrorism
>>67615822
You know how calm I am? I'm so calm I've never considered bombing people for my beliefs. And I've never gone on a Pomeranian image board while sitting in my mom's basement and tried to defend a hypocritical terrorist.
>>67615682
JPP... is that you? are you crusading about things blowing up in your hands?
ITT: Watching a new mind be freed.
>>67615682
He gave into rage in the end and was well aware of how he would be seen.
"True I would not fit into the present society in any case but that is not an intolerable situation. What makes a situation intolerable is the fact that in all probability, the values that I detest, will soon be achieved through science, an utterly complete and permanent victory throughout the whole world, with a total extrication of everything I value…. It's not merely the fact that I cannot fit into society that has induced me to rebel, as violently as I have, it is the fact that I can see society made possible by science inexorably imposing on-me….I intend to start killing people. If I am successful at this, it is possible that, when I am caught (not alive, I fervently hope) there will be some speculation in the news media as to my motives for killing …. If some speculation occurs, they are bound to make me out to be a sickie, and to ascribe to my motives of a sordid or “sick” type. Of course, the term “sick” in such a context represents a value judgment … the news media may have something to say about me when I am killed or caught. And they are bound to try to analyse my psychology and depict me as “sick.” This powerful bias should be borne [in mind] in reading any attempts to analyse my psychology "
>>67615914
>If its the ideas that matter, why would it matter if he acts consistently with them?
Did you even read this or think twice before you typed it? Are you really this dense?
>>67616068
... And the agents come right after him.
>>67616068
I dont think many here are trying to justify terrorism. At least i hope not. I find the cock suckers ideas interesting to debate/discussion because they are intellectual. But people openly discussing the intellectual ideas of someone does not equal the justification of terrorism or their acts.
You may need to grow the fuck up, or get some butt paste for your ass-hurt.
now move along fagboy.
>>67616458
Go ahead and answer it.
>>67616451
>"True I would not fit into the present society in any case but that is not an intolerable situation. What makes a situation intolerable is the fact that in all probability, the values that I detest, will soon be achieved through science, an utterly complete and permanent victory throughout the whole world, with a total extrication of everything I value…. It's not merely the fact that I cannot fit into society that has induced me to rebel, as violently as I have, it is the fact that I can see society made possible by science inexorably imposing on-me….I intend to start killing people. If I am successful at this, it is possible that, when I am caught (not alive, I fervently hope) there will be some speculation in the news media as to my motives for killing …. If some speculation occurs, they are bound to make me out to be a sickie, and to ascribe to my motives of a sordid or “sick” type. Of course, the term “sick” in such a context represents a value judgment … the news media may have something to say about me when I am killed or caught. And they are bound to try to analyse my psychology and depict me as “sick.” This powerful bias should be borne [in mind] in reading any attempts to analyse my psychology "
The first half is:
>I...I...I...I...
Kill yourself, Teddy boy. Kill yourself.
The second half is:
>Emo bullshit. They just don't understand. They think I'm sick and crazy but I'm really super smart and cultured. You're not the boss of me, Dad!
Kill yourself, Teddy boy. Kill yourself.
>>67616068
So are you since both sides terrorized each other, but it didn't start with Ted his terrorism was the result of the state sponsored terrorism that your are endorsing.
>>67615979
part 2
151. The social disruption that we see today is certainly not the
result of mere chance. It can only be a result fo the conditions of
life that the system imposes on people. (We have argued that the most
important of these conditions is disruption of the power process.) If
the systems succeeds in imposing sufficient control over human
behavior to assure itw own survival, a new watershed in human history
will have passed. Whereas formerly the limits of human endurance have
imposed limits on the development of societies (as we explained in
paragraphs 143, 144), industrial-technological society will be able to
pass those limits by modifying human beings, whether by psychological
methods or biological methods or both. In the future, social systems
will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human
being will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system.
>>67614780
I'm saying his manifesto wasn't nearly as interesting as his equations. His manifesto was more just common sense philosophical rambling. He had actual academic work that showed *how* his theories were mathematically possible and how it was going to be calculated. How super computers were going to do it. Anyone can say anything is going to happen, but to show how is far more interesting.
>>67616640
Nah, I'm good. Teddy didn't kill me so I'm free to use this Somalian Pirate image board and the great evil of technology and advancement.
>>67605630
It's too late. The computers are going to take over. They beat us in Chess, they beat us 80% of the time at Go. They're faster and smarter. Ted was right but that doesn't matter anymore.
>>67616310
You didn't waste years of your higher education being ridiculed and having every valid opinion of yours torn to pieces by a panel of post doctorates while your were compartmentalized so your education could purposely stagnate.
>>67616310
>killing someone means everything you've ever said in your life has been incorrect by default
literally the dumbest person on all of 4chan
What pill is beyond the redpill?
I feel Teddy went past the redpill where not even we have yet breached
>>67616675
If he doesn't act consistently with his ideas, then he proves the ideas don't matter. They aren't worth it enough to act consistently with them.
Therefore, ergo, vis-a-vis, he's a hypocrite.
>>67617290
>You didn't waste years of your higher education being ridiculed and having every valid opinion of yours torn to pieces by a panel of post doctorates while your were compartmentalized so your education could purposely stagnate.
Yes, this has never happened to anyone else, ever, and it totally justifies bombing and killing people because Professor Jones didn't listen to what they had to say.
For fuck's sake, man.
>>67617317
Um...no, pal...I'm talking about this dipshit's manifesto and killing in the name of his beliefs.
>>67617395
ad hominem, Tu quoque
>>67605630
anyone smart knows its a brilliant piece of work that rings true in many respects
had same reaction on my 1st read.
>>67605630
Student of Russian literature and history here.
Kaczynski is good in the aggregate, especially benefitting from the false expectation of incoherent madness, but he clearly never studied the Russian Revolution, and didn't study very closely the French one either. Not a matter of opinion, the stuff he says about the Russian Revolution flat out instantly makes clear to anyone who's read more than one book that he's going off of generalities by non-specialists, definitely at least "Anatomy of a Revolution." It's honestly like being a physics guy and hearing someone aggressively start a conversation about "free energy."
(Anatomy us a good book but is consistently loose in its grasp of Russian facts in general and the writer is clearly biased. It's pol material and worth your time but very imperfect.)
>>67617716
shhh hes never heard of dem big wordages like tu quoque
>>67617389
the uvpill
>>67617614
It wasn't just one professor, it was the full weight of the US government and all the resources available to MK Ultra black budget experiments and very few people were targeted as hard as he was.
>>67608721
What's your address? I've got a package I want to send you.
>>67610242
McDonalds in Japan?
>>67617716
>ad hominem, Tu quoque
>A criticism is also not an ad hominem argument if a person's merits are actually the topic of the argument. A habitual liar is not physically incapable of telling the truth, and therefore dismissing their claims entirely is not valid, but it is certainly not incorrect to weigh their testimony as less trustworthy than that of someone with a reputation for studious honesty if comparing contradictory claims by the two. In cases of testimony the goal is to establish which claim is more likely to be true, so the character of witnesses is a valid subject of discussion.
>All too often, people cry "ad hominem" when their debate opponent insults them, while failing to see the opposing arguments.
Like I give a fuck anyway.
>>67618217
I notice you didn't greentext tu quoque.
M M M UH HYPOCRISY
you're a nigger, even if you're white, get the fuck away from us you drooling retard.
>>67617395
> then he proves the ideas dont matter
It doesnt tho.
Thats just fucking ridiculous.
Like, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and he was an advocate of abolition. Would you just conclude 'Slavery is good actually'?
'Thomas Jefferson said something but hes a fag so its bad actually QED'
'That smoker told me to never smoke, but hes smoking right now so its obviously the best thing ever QED'
'That veteran told me war is hell, but he fought in like 9 of them so war must be amazing QED'
>>67618513
Or, adding to that, why wouldnt it make his ideas more interesting? If he acts in a way you dont expect, might that suggest that you dont actually fully understand him? If you dont understand him, why dont you investigate the issue further.
If the unabomber is a hypocrit (and I dont think he is), then its not just to fuck with you. Its not some elaborate troll. Hes being sincere, even if hes confused. A confused idea can still be insightful. Why dont you give him that modicum of credit? Why be a faggot on the internet about dumb shit?
>>67618335
Oh here we go. We got him, boys. Like your savior, Teddy boy, you're so fucking retarded, you think you're an intellectual. He hated you. He hated himself. He hated intellectuallism. He hated that he wasn't an intellectual.
Get fucked faggot. He was a hypocrite. You are a hypocrite.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Get out! Out I say!
Dumb motherfucker.
>>67613706
I'd bet you wank it in a mirror.
>>67605630
His manifesto was good but IMO his research into pure mathematics meant he was spending almost every waking moment thinking about almost incomprehensible concepts like the square root of -1 and the fifth dimension which eventually lead to his thought process becoming so abstract that he almost completely lost grasp on reality
>math, not even once
>>67618513
>Like, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and he was an advocate of abolition. Would you just conclude 'Slavery is good actually'?
No, you fucking moron. Thomas Jefferson advocated for abolition and actively campaigned for abolition and in 1807 signed a law prohibiting the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States. And he was in favor of gradual emancipation.
Was Thomas Jefferson a hypocrite? Fuckin yeah he was. Was he a rational human being who didn't go around murdering people who didn't agree with his positions? Yeah. He did what he could in his position of power to change the laws and the perspective of the people.
It's pretty funny to see everyone in here so up in arms about killing people.
Human life is nearly worthless. There's what, like 7 billion people on this planet now? If you die tomorrow no one is going to give a shit outside of your small group of immediate contacts. Those people will continue to live out their life and for the most part you will be forgotten by everyone except immediate family. Now, would I be heartbroken if someone in my immediate family died? Of course. But literally no one else is going to care. Our individual existence is pretty much futile and pointless.
The US government literally has drone operators killing people with Xbox 360 video game controllers. Think about that. That is how worthless life is. That's how worthless the government considers life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWuP6dmYOE0 blam, you just watched 20 people die, 17 more than Ted killed.
More people died in car wrecks per day than Ted would have ever killed with his bombings.
Ted did a very simple cost benefit analysis. He decided to kill some people who he thought would ultimately bring about more prolonged suffering to millions of people, and he's not necessarily wrong about that. Most people simply lack the willpower.
It's akin to Soros funding refugees into Europe. Thousands of them have drowned and died making the journey. Hundreds more Europeans will be killed or raped as a result. Did Soros thrust the knife or hold the refugees underwater? No but his very questionable and intentional actions are indirectly responsible for this. Yet I'd be willing to bet if someone killed Soros, they themselves would be the ones considered by almost everyone to be the monster.
>>67615914
>>67615682
he states in the manifesto that he only killed people to try and get attention to his opinions
>>67618972
I wish I could masturbate to the thought of myself. It'd make life much easier, don't you think?
>>67618217
If you give no fucks, why do you continue posting? Being a hypocrite doesn't invalidate the ideas.
>>67619239
>Was Thomas Jefferson a hypocrite? Fuckin yeah he was. Was he a rational human being who didn't go around murdering people who didn't agree with his positions? Yeah.
Actually you are a hypocrite now. You said since the unabomber was a hypocrite his ideas werent worth considering. Now you are saying that despite Thomas Jefferson being a hypocrite his ideas were worth consider. So its got nothing to do with hypocrisy. You just dont like the unabomber. You are just being flamboyantly stupid on 4chan (which is actually pretty cute).
>>67619326
Yeah, I know hes not a hypocrite. Im just saying, even if he was, its still not a basis to discredit him.
>>67617968
>and hearing someone aggressively start a conversation about "free energy."
tried to picture this and keked hard
>>67619326
>he states in the manifesto that he only killed people to try and get attention to his opinions
REALLY?! Hmmm. Well shit. You don't say? Welp. Now I'm convinced guys. See ya.
>>67619469
Yes it does.
>>67619543
>You said since the unabomber was a hypocrite his ideas werent worth considering.
No. I said the unabomber killed people in the name of his beliefs and that's why his ideas weren't worth considering.
He's not a hypocrite at all if he publishes and lectures and teaches and tries to convince and convert people to his positions. Maybe he runs for office like Jefferson? Imagine an alternate history, where Teddy boy publishes his manifesto and we're voting him for President in 2016? Sadly, we're not. He's rotting in prison because he bombed people.
You're a retarded faggot that thinks he's smart. I'm flattered you think I'm cute, but I'm not a faggot.
>>67619665
>>67619661
Yeah and I know he offered not to kill anyone if major news publications published his manifesto. They didnt agree.
He went a long time alone in the woods not killing anyone. I remember reading his account of the forest land around him being encroached upon. I believe he sincerely avoided having to kill anyone. You could dispute whether it was necessary, but I dont think he was insincere in his intention not to kill anyone. He killed as a last resort.
> See ya
Thank God.
>>67619248
I couldn't agree more, its obvious if you want to change the world people will suffer and die in the process. What he did can be morally wrong but doesn't really change the fact that this is how the world works and that is how he got his message out.
>>67605630
yeah, civilization sucks man, rather than tweak the things that arent working lets just burn it all down nigger-style and shit on our feet instead... said the fuckwit typing this retarded ass thread on a computer
>>67620102
it had to be a Australian, never cease to amaze
>>67620006
MK Ultra wouldn't even let him discuss his ideas with his peers in college, they kept harassing and sabotaging him with high level shills, what makes you think they would allow him to go on a successful lecture circuit?
>>67620006
So all religions are not worth considering as people have killed in their name. Democracy and every other political system is not worth considering for the same reason. I have to ask are you a Bern victim trying to take out your anger?
>>67620013
PSYCHE! STILL HERE, QUEER! YOU'RE STILL FUCKIN' RETARDED.
Keep justifying terrorism.
>>67620014
justifying terrorism
>>67620006
Going to stop feeding this guy anytime soon?
He's like the people who enter fap threads to shit on the material.
If you're practicing for IRL conversations...well I guess that's understandable.
>>67620006
No this is what you said
>If he doesn't act consistently with his ideas, then he proves the ideas don't matter.
Thomas Jefferson didnt act consistently with his beliefs. That proves Thomas Jeffersons ideas dont matter.
Why do you have to make this complicated. Just say you are butt mad that he killed people. Just admit that you dont really care about the matter, you couldnt be bothered to read a measly 30 page essay, and that your butt is severely frustrated.
Also fun fact, Thomas Jefferson was a colonel in the military, and also killed people in the name of his political ideas.
>>67620013
They did agree and that's how he was caught.
>>67613307
Someone send him the GPLv3 and ask for his opinion on it.
>>67620432
> PSYCHE! STILL HERE, QUEER! YOU'RE STILL FUCKIN' RETARDED.
Actually made me laugh. Nice trick!
>>67619248
Someone aside from Jose reply to me god dammit, I made some good points.
>>67620385
>So all religions are not worth considering as people have killed in their name.
No. God damn it. You fucking retard. The people who kill in the name of their religion are not worth considering. God damn it. How do you not fucking understand this yet?
>Democracy and every other political system is not worth considering for the same reason.
When did I ever say I agree with anyone killing in the name of Democracy?
>I have to ask are you a Bern victim trying to take out your anger?
TRUMP, baby. TRUMP.
>>67620471
>They did agree and that's how he was caught.
Oh really? But I thought he was still killing when they caught him?
>>67620432
I have literally nothing against acts of violence when its done in the purpose of a revolution and not for religion.
>>67620621
I would give you a better analysis of your points but I'm finishing to read the manifesto
>>67620642
Washington post with the help of the New York times publish it at the urging of the fbi. As the Fbi has no fucking clues or leads after 17 years. His brother reads it and turns him in.
>>67620468
Dude. You are honest to God retarded. He was a hypocrite because he killed people in the name of his belief that humanity should go back to pre-industrial revolution and to "warn" people that big government is trying to control our lives. How do you not fucking see why his actions are not consistent and that's why his ideas are worthless and that's what makes him a hypocrite? He bombed people to convince people to live his way. Like, how do you not fucking get this?
As for Jefferson, that was war. A declared war against another country.
I've read it all, faggot. You're wrong and you're retarded. Someday you'll grow up and realize it. I hope you remember this conversation and look in the mirror and say three times, "He was right. I'm a retarded faggot that justified terrorism."
Good night guys I will go to sleep, its late here, will be opening another thread about this tomorrow, tried to finish reading the manifesto but its late and I need to go
>>67621139
Dude, he was advocating for a REVOLUTION ins his manifesto. PEOPLE DIE IN REVOLUTIONS.
He literally did what he believed in. You are just too stupid to understand this.
>>67621139
> He bombed people to convince people to live his way
Yeah two things, first its not hypocritical to commit an act of violence as a political statement. There might be a fair argument that it would be ineffective, but being ineffective isnt the same as being hypocritical. Two, is, he didnt kill with the purpose of convincing. He killed to hurt the techno-industrial system.
>As for Jefferson, that was war. A declared war against another country.
Kek. You are the king of loop holes.
So Jefferson is good because it was a war, but the unabomber is stupid and hypocritical because he is just one guy. OKAY. Perfect sense.
> "He was right. I'm a retarded faggot that justified terrorism."
I love your catch phrase.
> THIS JUSTIFIES TERRORISM
> THIS JUSTIFIES TERRORISM.
'Its terrorism so you are wrong QED'
>>67621146
Good night pal. Best of luck.
>>67621353
OHHHH NOW I GET IT?!!! I can just go and start killing people as long as I write a manifesto that this is in the name of "revolution." Got it now, little buddy! Thanks!
>>67613488
It seems like this murderer never considered a third possibility, freedom via a Stand Alone relation. He only sees the 50, the 1, the 4,999,949. He can't see the Superstructure.
>>67618036
Is there a reason you didn't go with infraredpill?
>>67621624
Exactly!!!!! Finally.
What was Ted's reasoning sending bombs to random people? What was he trying to achieve?
>>67621624
>I can just go and start killing people as long as I write a manifesto that this is in the name of "revolution."
Yeah you could actually. It might not make you a good person, but it wouldnt necessarily make you a hypocrit.
You could write a wonderful thing, claim it justifies killing and then kill people. That wouldnt mean you didnt write a wonderful thing.
>>67621588
>first its not hypocritical to commit an act of violence as a political statement.
OHHH OKAY. It's totally starting to come around for me, now. Same as >>67621624. Totally starting to get it. Totally. Definitely starting to see the sanity in all this. Good ideas, guys. Man, these ultra redpills take a whlie to kick in, eh?
>'Its terrorism so you are wrong QED'
Terrorism is wrong. Clearly you disagree.
Thank you for enlightening me. You're so wise. It's nice to see someone believes in the virtues of terrorism.
>>67621944
>You could write a wonderful thing, claim it justifies killing and then kill people. That wouldnt mean you didnt write a wonderful thing.
Dude...just...dude...
On that note, I'm giving up, man. I'm just not as intellectual as you. You win. You're more of a leftist intellectual than me. You can justify terrorism in your mind. The ultimate test of intellectualism. Congratulations. I throw in the towel. Argument is over.
>>67621954
>>67622217
Listen if you need any help reconstructing your anus let me know. Id be happy to help.
>>67622380
>Listen if you need any help reconstructing your anus let me know.
Faggot confirmed.
>>67621898
From what I understood he used this to bribe the new york times to publish his manifesto, I don't know really just read it on the thread
Maybe one of you other anons can tell us about this
>>67610654
every year more capitalism is chipped away
>>67622604
He started bombing people in 1978. The first bomb that killed was 1985. He didn't start writing letters until 1993, because he didn't feel he was getting enough attention.
But everyone else will justify his terrorism. So you know, terrorism and whatever, but he really had a lot to offer.
>>67614751
2045
