Kaczynski's psychology

[Anonymous No.21731145]

Reading his work I couldn't help but wonder if the activist part of his message wasn't just a cope. He's obviously brilliant in his diagnosis, so it seems weird that he loses his clarity of mind in thinking that industrial society can be voluntarily overthrown by a few people playing revolutionary terrorist.

Did he just have to believe this as a psychological necessity, something to give meaning to his existence? Clearly actually living in a cabin in the woods was not enough and neither was just diagnosing the problem like Ellul.

Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.21731148]

>>21731145
>He's obviously brilliant in his diagnosis, so it seems weird that he loses his clarity of mind in thinking that industrial society can be voluntarily overthrown by a few people playing revolutionary terrorist.
Wrong. both parts are weak. You only think his diagnosis is so "brilliant" because you are easily impressionable and lashing out emotionally against technology due to your internet addiction.

[Anonymous No.21731162]

He showed that one man can disrupt the system. Imagine if there were 100 people doing similar things at the same time? There'd be pretty evident chaos.

Now, can the entire system be overthrown by 100 people? No. The system has be overthrown not through chaos but agreement, i.e. the people in the system have to agree to disengage. This will never happen, however, since the system keeps people reliant on it -- that is part of the psychological aspect Ted talks about.

Meaning to his existence isn't really relevant since people do that with or without the technological system; it's just an innate death anxiety.

[Anonymous No.21731163]

>>21731148
What do you find weak about his diagnosis?

[Anonymous No.21731166]

>>21731145
He is mentally ill anon. Find someone better to idolize, for your own sake.

[Anonymous No.21731174]

>>21731166
I'm not idolising him, as I said I'm not fully on board with his claims. I'm just suffering a bit of cognitive dissonance uniting insightful Ted and deluded Ted.

[Anonymous No.21731184]

>>21731163
anyone can list ways technology is bad. anyone can make up an oversimplified and bullshit materialist psychology to justify their post-marxian dialectical world view. imagine reducing all of human being to a formulaic "process" that can be fully defined in one sentence. he's basically using materialism to justify his philosophy which is completely outdated as a materialist framework can't justify anything at all unless it's a scientific observation, but to make a scientific observation you will have to hold yourself to the standards of the scientific method which he most certainly does not do (although he may think that he does because of his illusions about his capacity for "rigorous thought" due to his successful career in mathematics, utterly useless in making empirical observations that must be weighed by other kinds of reasoning).

[Anonymous No.21731193]

>>21731174
It’s all the same Ted I’m afraid. Some people suffering from mental illness can appear quite rational but are still severely ill. He stated a problem but offered no viable solution, I’m not sure how that makes him insightful by any meaningful metric.

[Anonymous No.21731208]

>>21731184
>>21731163
also note that I am not criticizing him for not using the scientific method, I am criticizing him for refusing to do battle in the realm of Spirit yet also refusing to hold himself to the epistemological standards of science. If he would base his arguments on morality, ethics, metaphysics, I would be happy to debunk him on those grounds, and my metaphysics affords me ample reason to be disgusted at his ethics, but the fact is I cannot even offer Platonic criticism of him because he does not make any philosophical claims but instead bases his entire ideology on materialism. Since he does that, I will naturally hold him to materialist standards, where he utterly fails by every metric.

[Anonymous No.21731232]

>>21731174
why do people, especially young men, think heavy cynicism is so insightful? i mean i used to think that kind of "radical" shit was appealing too but it's just lazy thinking.

[Anonymous No.21731264]

>>21731184
How is materialism outdated?

[Anonymous No.21731294]

>>21731264
any materialist ethics or morality will have to locate the origin of morality in the material world, but this is impossible. furthermore, materialism is both unnecessary for science and has been used to conduct pseudoscience for centuries, starting with Marx who had basically the exact same methodological flaws as Kaczysnki has - if you ground your ideology in materialism you appear more rational and grounded in facts, but you contradict yourself the moment you make any deduction that is not based on solid empirical evidence, which Kaczynski constantly does, for example, by listing ways that technology has had negative effects and concluding that because of this technology is bad, by using cheap appeals to evolutionary psychology to make the leap that all human happiness is due to his made up idea of the power process, and in his egregiously pseudoscientific collapse model laid out in anti-tech revolution. but you accept it mindlessly because he has the air of rationality and lucidity.

[Anonymous No.21731339]

>>21731294
the perception of a contradiction, however, is a mindless thing; an empty intellectualization which doesn't apply in the real world in any area - kind of the slippery slope fallacy, "if we arrest murderers for murder eventually we'll be arresting non-murderers for premeditated murder, therefore we can't arrest murderers due to the contradiction,"

obviously real humans don't think this way YOU FUCKIN SYNTH - GRAB HIS HEAD, TAKE OFF HIS FACE, CALL THE HUNTERS WE'VE GOT ONE

[Anonymous No.21731365]

>>21731184
His view is actually idealistic and he says so straight away; his complaints about the power process were designed to offer materialists a motivation to agree.
His primary opposition to I.S. is on the grounds of it being 'dehumanizing' in a metaphysical sense.
>>21731208
Unfortunately you are genuinely unintelligent. Go ahead and seethe and beg to be debunked; I'm sure you can achieve validation in some way.
>>21731145
Do all people that fight do so out of cope? If so, sure. Just because it's a losing fight doesn't mean fighting is a cope, many millions have fought on principle alone. Kaczynski simply sees I.S. as the single greatest threat to humanity materially, spiritually, and metaphysically, and although his odds of success are vanishingly small, to simply abandon the fight for his own material pleasure would be astoundingly selfish. Kaczynski fought not for himself, but for the generations that would come after him. He realized from the start that it would take a while to win the fight. Criticism of him on these grounds would be similar to criticizing any revolutionary thinker,* as they rarely live to see the realization of their revolutions.

*He is not revolutionary as a thinker in the sense that be put forth the topics first (he says so much in the introduction of his book) but moreso in his technical skill and simplification of the problem to practical and concrete terms. He's also the first to act on it.

[Anonymous No.21731381]

>>21731365
I hate to agree with you, but, yes: this is a spastic response,

>>21731208
>. If he would base his arguments on morality, ethics, metaphysics, I would be happy to debunk him on those grounds, and my metaphysics affords me ample reason to be disgusted at his ethics, but the fact is I cannot even offer Platonic criticism of him because he does not make any philosophical claims but instead bases his entire ideology on materialism.

[Anonymous No.21731384]

>>21731145
I think he could have done a lot of good work by being a professor and writing more. But I guess that would invalidate the real revolutionary aspect part of his work. I think most of all his work was probably untimely. I imagine if he did it now or in the past several years it would have been bigger. But the system would have absorbed it regardless, I think.

>>21731162
He didn’t disrupt anything. Getting people to read your manifesto isn’t disrupting the system.

>>21731193
>system makes people mentally unwell
>that somehow makes them worthless
It’s actually the opposite.

[Anonymous No.21731415]

>>21731145
>And, get this, we could actually defeat this technological evil! We're just going to require some revolutionary spirit and a meager few billion dead humans, a small price to pay for logistical disruption.

[Anonymous No.21731455]

>>21731145
He was a schizo who attracts midwit pseuds.

[Anonymous No.21731471]

>>21731145
>industrial society can be voluntarily overthrown by a few people playing revolutionary terrorist
Gwern seems to think that it would take less than 100 terrorists to completely destroy a Fortune 500 company like Goldman Sachs.

https://www.gwern.net/Terrorism-is-not-Effective

>Suppose people angry at Goldman Sachs were truly angry: so angry that they went beyond posturing and beyond acting against Goldman Sachs only if action were guaranteed to cost them nothing (like writing a blog post). If they ceased to care about whether legal proceedings might be filed against them; if they become obsessed with destroying Goldman Sachs, if they devoted their lives to it and could ignore all bodily urges and creature comforts. If they could be, in a word, like Niven’s Protectors or Vinge’s Focused.

>Could they do it? Could they destroy a 3 century old corporation with close to $1 trillion in assets, with sympathizers and former employees throughout the upper echelons of the United States Federal Government (itself the single most powerful entity in the world)?

>Absolutely. It would be easy.

>As I said, the destructive power of a human is great; let’s assume we have 100 fanatics—a vanishingly small fraction of those who have hated on GS over the years—willing to engage even in assassination, a historically effective tactic32 and perhaps the single most effective tactic available to an individual or small group.

[Anonymous No.21731493]

>>21731415
Yes. A small disruption in something like semiconductors manufacture could result in billions of deaths if sustained, and could reasonably be pulled off by 20 or so terrorists.

[Anonymous No.21731546]

>>21731294
Fair points desu.

Do any resident Tedfags have a compelling defence on why is "technology bad" is actually morally valid?

[Anonymous No.21731561]

>>21731471
How do you assasinate your way out of industrial society though? It's a headless beast, more like the shoal of fish we are all part of than something deliberate. There's nobody there to attack.

[Anonymous No.21731707]

>>21731384
Yeah I didn’t say that at all. Everyone has value, even the mentally ill. He’s a murderer, however, which pretty much negates any other positives I can think of.

[Anonymous No.21732483]

>>21731546
>Do any resident Tedfags have a compelling defence on why is "technology bad" is actually morally valid?
even I know that "technology bad" was a strawman for the argument, or the sentiment, in the first place... which is valid and certainly wasn't made first or last by Ted.

[Anonymous No.21732499]

>>21731184
This is literally just word salad.

[Anonymous No.21732579]

>>21732499
Jim had been robbed in the street but the policeman dismissed his concerns a being the product of,
>an oversimplified and bullshit materialist psychology to justify their post-marxian dialectical world view

But Jim had felt bold and demanded of the policeman what the fellows excuse would have been to avoid doing his job 'before' Marx was able to be used as a justification. At this the policeman staggered backwards, gasping for debunks which did not come, and he gave up and threw himself in front of a bus.

[Anonymous No.21733073]

>>21731145
His hostility towards technology was deeply personal. He did not start his "activism" by trying to organize a meaningful resistance, or even writing propaganda, he just started disrupting machinery near his cabin. All the revolution stuff he formulated after. He argued that the only way to be "consistent" in his actions was complete dedication and embracing violence. Fixed ideas like these are common among highly intelligent people.

[Anonymous No.21733096]

>>21731546
Not at a tedfag, but his argument on technology was not a moral statement.

[Anonymous No.21733163]

>>21733073
Sounds Nechayevish

[Anonymous No.21733220]

>>21731184
>which is completely outdated
Kaczynski is the only materialist operating from the contemporary framework of complex system analysis kek. I'd wager inconsequential marxists don't make you seethe as much.

>any materialist ethics or morality will have to locate the origin of morality in the material world, but this is impossible
kek
>battle in the realm of Spirit
kek
>If he would base his arguments on morality, ethics, metaphysics, I would be happy to debunk him on those ground
morality, ethics and metaphysics are completely outdated, rendered absolutely obsolete by the emergence of biotechnology. The entire philosophical corpsu was based on the assumption that human nature was (largely) fixed. Genetic engineering destroys this premise and leaves you unemployed. Maybe if you had read contemporary philosophers who make such claims we could discuss, but it seems your area of specialization is necromancy.
You are just another confused university intellectual too used to dissecting dead concepts in sterile environments to claim any kind of relevancy.

[Anonymous No.21733247]

>>21731145
he does not claim that
>industrial society can be voluntarily overthrown by a few people playing revolutionary terrorist.
at all. the entire point of his philosophy is that the planification of society is not subject to rational control. in other words, human will is not a historical determinant.

Kaczynski's psychology is just that, psychology, and he doesn't claim that his psychological framework supersedes the sociological and structural aspects of industrial society.
I think his emphasis on psychology is purely strategic, and his latest correspondences in which he attacks "ecofascists" point in this direction as well . He opens up ISAIF with a brutal attack on leftist psychology to deter these leftist types from claiming the anti-tech as one of their struggle. And anyone invested in radical leftist and anarchist circles knows he is absolutely right in doing so.
Leftism is palliative care, anti-tech is the healing process.

[Anonymous No.21733251]

>>21733073
Well he was protecting his forest. kek
People who receive firsthand experience of a problem are more likely to have greater insight into it i.e., white victims of anti-white racism opposing CRT, black victims of racism supporting BLM, etc.

[Anonymous No.21733260]

>>21731145
Reminder Ted is a repressed AGP and he would've trooned out hard if he was born 2003.

[Anonymous No.21733312]

>>21733073
>His hostility towards america was deeply personal. He did not start his "activism" by trying to organize a meaningful resistance, or even writing propaganda, he just started burning us flags near his mud hut. All the revolution stuff he formulated after. He argued that the only way to be "consistent" in his actions was complete dedication and embracing violence. Fixed ideas like these are common among djihadists
>His hostility towards the king was deeply personal. He did not start his "activism" by trying to organize a meaningful resistance, or even writing propaganda, he just started disrupting law enforcement activites near his thatched house. All the revolution stuff he formulated after. He argued that the only way to be "consistent" in his actions was complete dedication and embracing violence. Fixed ideas like these are common among the third estate

Kaczynski is open about this by the way. I don't know why you think this is bad, because the current state of anarchy as of 2022 is exactly this. In France the current and main mode of anarchist struggle is the ZAD (zone à défendre) which is the IMMEDIATE reappropriation of our environment. (In 2015, the French term "zadiste" entered the 2016 edition of Le Petit Robert dictionary as "a militant occupying a ZAD to oppose a proposed development that would damage the environment."[2][3] The ZADs are organized particularly in areas with an ecological or agricultural dimension.) It is much more healthier and intelligent than the neurotic approach that university revolutionaries peddled for more than a century. Fortunately for us Debord is still somehow read and understood and we don't care for institutionalized rackets like bolshevism or state sanctionned ecology.

[Anonymous No.21733419]

>>21731145
Committing atrocities helps with getting out the "message", look at ISIS. Edgy retards always flock to these people, and that's what he expected.

[Anonymous No.21733502]

>>21733419
I don't merely mean his own terrorist campaign which he did to get the word out. The reason he was so dedicated to getting the word out was the idea that getting the word out could actually change the direction that civilisation is heading by influencing enough people to adhere to his views to spawn organisations that will overthrow global industrial society, by having coordinated cells of tedfags attack crucial infrastructure literally all over the globe at the exact same time to crash the industrial system for long enough that it can never recover.

[Anonymous No.21733560]

I think you are mistaking what the solution HAS to be like with how likely he thought it was going to be, certainly not much in his time and even today, despite the instabilities going on, nowhere did he say from what I can recall that he thought the revolution was going to be likely. Read Technological Slavery not just ISAIF, he makes his reasons more clear there.
He wasn't simply talking to people in his era anyway. There may come a time, maybe even within our lifetimes, where IS becomes so oppressive and stressful that such kind of activism may not be so out of question, especially as the system is weak and even small fluctuations may cause massive cascade effects. As for its spreading worldwide, maybe it will have to take the form of a religious new age or something like that.

[Anonymous No.21733569]

>>21731294
>materialism is both unnecessary for science
put one example where materialism is unnecesary in science. empirism without materialism is nothing.

[Anonymous No.21733616]

>>21733569
NTA but empiricism doesn't rely on materialism at all. Materialism is merely a metaphysical statement on the nature of being. You can perform the exact same scientific experiments as an idealist. It's just pattern recognition in the phenomenal world, regardless of what the phenomenal world is made of.

[Anonymous No.21734083]

>>21731145
Part of his description of leftist psychology can be applied to his own. He felt the psychological shackles of society acutely, and the frustration of what he calls the power process was strong in him. The difference is that he was not ‘over socialized’ in the sense that his was a genuine rebellion against the system as opposed to the faux radicalism of the left. It still is displacement of repressed rage. It is well known that the more gifted a child is the easier it is to traumatize them. Kaczynski’s IQ is 167. He was verbally abused by his parents and the feds. Someone with such a highly individuated nature could easily lose their bearings when they are traumatized and see the horrific patterns under the surface that the vast majority are blind to.

[Anonymous No.21734373]

>>21734083
His actual definition of leftism is primarily 'feelings of inferiority' or identification with oppressed peoples because of it. Another core part of leftism is their uncompromising support for the system, because the system itself is necessary to enforce equity, build funds for distribution to oppressed/disabled people, etc.
He said the frustration of the power process was essentially universal in everyone and impossible to effectively avoid in industrial society. However, he did not say fulfillment of the power process was necessary for happiness: he mentions 'avolitional' and 'weak,' essentially very well socialized humans that mark the modern era that are OK with living an entirely powerless and meaningless existence for the sole purpose of producing products to consume products (maybe needing anti-depressants to keep it up, or whatever else I.S. invents)

[Anonymous No.21734657]

>>21734373
>However, he did not say fulfillment of the power process was necessary for happiness
This is implied, I think. But my point is that a leftist, who is oversocialized, cannot buck the moral constraints of the system in their attempts to rebel due to their weakness. Someone, like Ted, who is high in trait Psychoticism (true for most high IQ geniuses) will experience the same social pressure differently and will have an antisocial response it. In both cases it is due to industrial society placing pressures upon an individual which undermines their ability to live with true dignity and self-reliance.

[Anonymous No.21735321]

>>21734083
>muh feds
Debunked

[Anonymous No.21735456]

>>21732499
It actually isn't. Just jargon heavy. You need to read up on philosophy of science(popper, kuhn, feyerbend)

[Anonymous No.21735463]

>>21735321
The people pushing the narrative that K was a fed psyop are feds and salty marxists tards.

[Anonymous No.21735467]

>>21731145
I’ve been saying this for awhile. Once one nation deindustrializes, they will get attacked right off the bat

[Anonymous No.21735471]

>>21731294
Most materialists piss me off honestly

[Anonymous No.21735497]

>>21735467
That's why you should read ISAIF because he specifically says DO NOT DEINDUSTRIALIZE for this reason.

[Anonymous No.21735505]

>>21735497
What's the alternative?

[Anonymous No.21735525]

>>21735505
Option 1: Blow up the Panama and Suez canal and occupy them for as long as possible with hostages (50-100 armed revolutionaries) (Probably millions dead from starvation and power outages, destruction of US as world superpower, possible collapse of industrial society)

Option 2: Blow up semiconductor factories in Taiwan and the Netherlands (20-50 revolutionaries) (tens of millions dead, possible destruction of industrial society)

Option 3: Instigate global thermonuclear war (pyrrhic victory, almost certain collapse of industrial society) Obviously only government officials can try this.

Obviously all of them are outlandishly difficult to pull off except for affluent or high ranking individuals. In the case of global semiconductors manufacture, it may be possible for a handful of engineers to sabotage it, but it's still unlikely.

[Anonymous No.21735536]

>>21735505
>>21735525
The thing is that industrial society is highly reliant on continued functioning. If only small spots of it are destroyed, it will easily recover as if nothing happened. If critical components are taken out and there is no easy replacement, IS will not be able to repair itself before other critical infrastructure breaks down. Even if a few small countries maintain their own grids, it's unlikely for them to recover before the components that they must necessarily import break down before they can create factories to produce them. Semiconductors are the biggest example of this.

[Anonymous No.21735548]

>>21735536
>Even if a few small countries maintain their own grids, it's unlikely for them to recover before the components that they must necessarily import break down before they can create factories to produce them
Got distracted while phoneposting. Rephrase:
Even if a few countries maintain their own infrastructure, they will likely not be able to construct factories in time to become self-reliant before their own infrastructure breaks down. This is exacerbated by the possible instability, mass migration, and war, and the fact they they may not have raw materials if they import, and they may not be able to import those raw materials if other countries do not have the infrastructure to collect them.

[Anonymous No.21736441]

>>21731162
filename

[Anonymous No.21736447]

>>21731184
yours is the most worthless post i have ever seen

[Anonymous No.21736454]

>>21735525
>>21735536
Read more sociology. In particular sociology of failed states and wars. Then start reading the histories of failed states and wars.

Capital is an extraordinarily resilient system which reboots from very small operative components (commodity, wage labour, capital goods).

Destructive waste may reduce the volume of commodities in circulation, but it increases the rate of profit by shifting the composition of capital backwards towards high labour-power inputs. The increase in the rate of profit motivates niche finding behaviour.

Sure millions of people win fabulous prizes, but big deal. Look at how little of an impact WWII had on _the capacity_ for German or Japanese industrial production.

Fucks sake cunts. Do some basic reading like you'd get from a BA.

[Anonymous No.21736465]

>>21731208
>I am criticizing him for refusing to do battle in the realm of Spirit

u are an actual retard. ted was diagnosing a problem and suggesting potential treatment. when my doctor is diagnosing me, the LAST thing i want him to do is engage in "battle in the realm of Spirit" LOL LMAO

[Anonymous No.21736496]

>>21735525
i would prefer to combine option 1 and 2. i think 200 motivated, trained men could pull it off

[Anonymous No.21737831]

>>21735536
>>21735548
Maybe Luddites should do a crossover with Salafism, they would go together well and it would give them true believers with extreme dedication.

[Anonymous No.21737841]

>>21735525
If and when the South China Sea goes hot the Taiwanese will blow up their own semi fabs to keep them out of the hands of the mainlanders. What a time to be alive!

[Anonymous No.21737882]

>>21737831
Islamic fundamentalism, not unlike national socialism, produces a seemingly reactionary discourse which profess a return to simpler living but in reality, in terms of material actuality, these radical groups are entirely devoted to technological progress;.

The most represented profession amongst islamic terrorists of the 20th century and up to and including al qaeda is ENGINEERS. The second is theologians, who are twice less numerous!! Power is inextricably link with technique. Power, the state and technology all co-produce themselves jointly.

It has changed with ISIS though, which understood that disenfranchised young muslims in western ghettos were objective allies and now they make up the majority of bombers unlike the engineers and merchants of al qaed and previous organizations.

[Anonymous No.21737887]

>>21735525
But why would you do these things?

[Anonymous No.21737974]

>>21737887
Well to “help people” of course. Ted is mentally ill, end statement.

[Anonymous No.21738107]

>>21731148
Yeah, he was just a proto-incel. His extremism started after his brother had to fire him for sexually harassing a female coworker that he gave the ick. He couldn't get laid and went full violent creep.

[Anonymous No.21738119]

He only wanted to spread his thoughts, after which he was betrayed by his own coward brother. You wouldn't know him if he wasn't notorious.

[Anonymous No.21738144]

>>21731294
Science is not solid, nor is it concise. It often changes, so making arguments based on science won't make sense, for they did so centuries ago, arguing that Terra Australis would be habitable, and that the Tropicals were inhabitable because of extreme heat. Science is just human assumumptions. It isn't total truth. Believing blindly in "science" is just as foolish as beliving blindly in the words of the clergy

[Anonymous No.21738156]

>>21731145
>He's obviously brilliant in his diagnosis,
Because it is not his diagnosis. Read Ellul.

[Anonymous No.21738166]

>>21731294
Why are pseuds like this? Read Wittgenstein. Also find something better to do with your time.

[Anonymous No.21738168]

>>21738144
Worse still, the best science is still just a model. The map is not the territory.

[Anonymous No.21738172]

>>21731546
>a compelling defence on why is "technology bad" is actually morally valid?
How does the progress of technology make you feel?

[Anonymous No.21738198]

>>21738144
In what sphere can you make meaningful statements of "total truth", besides mathematics or some other formal/axiomatic discipline? The real world is uncertain, you'll have to accept that most useful arguments won't be based on "total truth". You should have grown out of this by now.

[Anonymous No.21738208]

>>21738168
I too read the first paragraph of he Reddit book that's so epic

[Anonymous No.21738282]

>>21738172
Bored. Technology has stagnated. We had the smartphone in 2007 and the personal computer and internet in the 90s. Those were big but otherwise, if you lock your phone and laptop in a drawer, you're back in the 1980s basically.

[Anonymous No.21738304]

>>21738119
>spreads his thoughts via mail bombs
Bitch get for real

[Anonymous No.21738341]

>>21738304
Well he was pretty successful at spreading his thoughts. Could you think of a more effective way of doing it?

[Anonymous No.21738344]

>>21736454
I don't give a shit whether the government is communist or capitalist; technology will always progress. You're the same ESL marxtard shitting up every thread with a sub 110 iq. Get out.

[Anonymous No.21738359]

>>21738341
Call me crazy (not crazy) but I’d personally try to opt for a way that didn’t harm random innocent people, even if it was a little more difficult. I reiterate: bitch get for real

[Anonymous No.21738408]

>>21738359
He didn't seem to care about that

[Anonymous No.21738525]

>>21738408
Well, once again, he’s mentally ill. It’s tragic in more ways than one

[Anonymous No.21738592]

>>21733312
I do not think I implied that he has tried to hide the origins of his revolutionary activism. He is remarkably honest about his intentions and thoughts, even remarks in one interview that he would not have attempted anything if Montana had stayed untouched. In his journals he also says that his first acts were simply for revenge. It is clear that Kaczynski was a highly individualistic (also socially inept) person and he would not have tried to organize any collective action, even if it would have been more rational in terms of achieving his goal of disrupting the technological system. So, it seems his own values of living with nature and self-reliance were more important to him than preventing what seemed to him as technological dystopia.

[Anonymous No.21738603]

>>21738282
CRISPR.

[Anonymous No.21738617]

>>21738107
This is the smartest mind of reddit.

[Anonymous No.21738671]

>>21731145
posting in obvious glowie thread

[Anonymous No.21738681]

>>21731208
>debunk
go back to r edd it faggot

[Anonymous No.21738711]

>>21731162
>He showed that one man can disrupt the system. Imagine if there were 100 people doing similar things at the same time? There'd be pretty evident chaos.
this. not only that but imagine if said people never published manifestos by which their brother could identify them by and rat them out to the feds. his wikipedia says that he was one of most (if not the most) costly and time consuming domestic terrorists ever.

[Anonymous No.21738743]

>>21731546
>Do any resident Tedfags have a compelling defence on why is "technology bad" is actually morally valid?
well ted reminds me a lot of the Amish and Mennonites in that he specifically mentions how technology is bad in that:

1. technology frees up time and too much free time leads to despair
2. technology in the wrong hands is too intrusive on individuals

look at the life he was living when it all started. all he wanted was to live a comfy life out in the woods and be left alone but big fed government has made that lifestyle nearly impossible.

[Anonymous No.21739068]

>>21738711
Nta but are you honestly this naive? Where do you think that money comes from? Why do you think the state is pushing so hard for mass surveillance? He accomplished exactly the opposite of what he intended and killed innocent people in the process

[Anonymous No.21739078]

>>21739068
Ted kaczynski is irrelevant in this case. US freaked out after 9/11.

[Anonymous No.21739085]

>>21739078
>whataboutism
Address my points or kindly fuck off

[Anonymous No.21739131]

>>21739085
Speculative questions which you can't even answer yourself. Also, you do not know the meaning of whataboutism. I'm not that guy, by the way.

[Anonymous No.21739305]

>>21739131
Ok, deflecting then. The money to find and incarcerate him comes from taxes levied against normal, everyday people. The surveillance state justified itself to prevent nutters like him from blowing up innocent people. There’s no speculation necessary. In addition to being a mentally ill murderer he’s also a fool, so you’re in good company on what I hope is only one count there

[Anonymous No.21739347]

>>21739305
Well, policing and intelligence are miniscule in scale when compared to the budget of the military or welfare programs. So the problem isn't money, its infringement on personal freedoms to prevent retards who don't understand probability from freaking out.

[Anonymous No.21739357]

>>21739347
Are you providing an illustrative example of whataboutism for my edification or are you serious in attempting to justify his actions? Serious question

[Anonymous No.21739378]

>>21739357
I don't think I would try to justify Kaczynski's actions, because quite simply I disagree with him. He is an interesting case to study, that is all.

[Anonymous No.21739392]

>>21739378
Well we agree on that at least. Take it easy anon, and I’ll be abandoning this thread as it’s not at all /lit/ and I should’ve known better than to get sucked into in the first place. Thank you as well for providing a textbook example of whataboutism without even the slightest shred of irony or self-reflection. We all have shit we need to work on.

[Anonymous No.21741187]

>>21731145
Crazy people can’t be reasoned with

[I V R I • N E M O !!GgBWHLRiayD No.21741346]

>>21731145
>muslim looking ted
>Thoughts?


More like: odd looking moss creature.

[Anonymous No.21741647]

>>21738603
Haven't seen anything tangible yet that impacts a lot of people, then i'll be impressed.

same with ai. it's all just hypothetical potential so far

[Anonymous No.21741742]

>>21741346
yeah looks dagestani

[Anonymous No.21741844]

>>21739068
>Nta but are you honestly this naive? Where do you think that money comes from? Why do you think the state is pushing so hard for mass surveillance?

Violent extortion and because ALL people who desire power are dangerous lunatics. The only solution is the death of all statists. If the power will always be abused it should be eliminated entirely along with its supporters.

[Anonymous No.21741854]

>>21741844
too bad that's impossible, name one place in history since the domestication of plants and animals where hierarchy hath not arisen

[Anonymous No.21741872]

>>21741854
>hierarchy

I am not a commie larping as an anarchist, most hierarchies are fine but the state should not be permitted.

[Anonymous No.21741879]

>>21741872
where does hierarchy turn into state? how formal does it need to get?

[Anonymous No.21743955]

>>21731208

[Anonymous No.21744610]

>>21731145
> it seems weird that he loses his clarity of mind in thinking that industrial society can be voluntarily overthrown by a few people playing revolutionary terrorist.


You haven’t read his work, your information comes through memes. Otherwise you would know this isn’t his prescription in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.21744662]

>>21731455
How dare you, he was a Polish American hero!

[Anonymous No.21744687]

>>21731145
>technology le bad!
I have summarized his entire body of work

[Anonymous No.21744768]

>>21731294
I can tell by your word salad posts that you are a mid-wit. His critiques are important because they bring up a valid question: Have we societally gone down an incorrect path since the industrial revolution? His manifesto, mainly due to how he got it published, is the most well known work that makes people think about how we have structured our civilization over the past century or two. It's a core argument that exists underneath ever surface level argument. For example, school shootings. Arguing about guns and video games is surface level and avoids the uncomfortable conversation about family structure. When a vital aspect of the topic is wondering if it is in our best interests to have both parents in the household leave their children to the state and television while they go off to wage cuck at the office. There are probably others out there who have made a similar point, but done s far better job. Problem is, no one has ever heard of them. Ted's work is worth something for bringing the topic into the light.

[Anonymous No.21744875]

which luddite philosopher can i actually namedrop around people with them not immediately checking out because of the serial killer terrorist bomber aspect?

[Anonymous No.21744902]

>>21735321
Meme confirmed.

[Anonymous No.21745825]

>>21731148
This. His hypothesis on 'modern leftists' couldn't predict any of the modern leftist talking points.

[Anonymous No.21745826]

>>21738711
>Consume police time
>Disrupting the system
Anon...

[Anonymous No.21745840]

This video uses lots of his ideas in a different way: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SXdu7XPZxAM

[Anonymous No.21745978]

>>21731145
It's hardly a "cope". If you have no belief that the thing you're fighting against can be beaten then why bother fighting against it?
Why would he go to such great lengths for his beliefs if he thought it wasn't possible?
In general this is kind of the whole point that a truly oppressive system's modus operandi is convincing its subjects that resistance is futile.