Thoughts on him?

its what happened when you are a genius and dont get laid. he should have sex during his teenage years

>muh sex incel hurrrrrrrr

His manifesto it's not bad. But some things don't make much sense and it's not even so original t bh. Most of it comes from a book he was reading

Did nothing wrong

he never tried to be original. he even admits it. but he puts things in a very clear and concise way and provides simple but strong logical justifications for his case. his manifesto makes neo-luddism much more accessible to the average person.

>cultural marxist
He hated lefties

Literally not true.
What anprim brainlets can't understand is that purpose of civilization is not to make people happy, its purpose is to make people strong.

Live isn't some journey to find happiness, it is never-ending war

>Live isn't some journey to find happiness, it is never-ending war
Maybe if you are some dumb fucking russian it is.

uncle ted isn't against civilization as whole, rather industrial civilization
>its purpose is to make people strong
yes, spending your day on a computer, artificially over stimulating all your senses, and consuming a diet of s0y, hfcs, and sugar totally makes you strong in both body and spirit!!!

Pretty cool guy.

You sittng all day on the computer is what allows economy to work which allows industry anbd science to generate power in military and other forms.
Said power is used to destroy "spiritually strong" primitive desert shitholes like your country again and again.

tell me user, how does said industry and science and military strength that you can use to destroy my primitive shithole, benefit you or anyone you love?
or doesn't 99% of the benefit go to the rich technocrats who own your country?

You fundamentally don't understand nature of this word.
One thing you need to get is when you are dead, your love, happiness and fulfilment of life turn to dust, they stop existing.
And some people will always want to kill you. Why - because they can. Because you can't do anything to stop them. They just enjoy destroying your life , your love, your happiness.
And only way to stop them is to be strong, to make them feel that their life is at risk too.
And progress is only way to become strong. History proved it again and again.

so to you progress is important to continue surviving, and surviving is important so that you can experience love, happiness, fulfilment, etc, correct?
Ok but what if said progress takes away all those things you wish to survive in order to experience, isn't that self contradictory?
or do you see no problem in a life reduced into simple consumption and reproduction as long as it continues? you know what else is like that? single celled amoeba. if anything that is the opposite of progress.

despite only making up 12% of your genes, irishness causes 50% of your retardation

> takes away all those things you wish to survive in order to experience
Progress doesn't take ALL those things. There are plenty of people who have some of those things.Probably not much, but some
Being dead because your developed neighbor decided to take everything you have however does take away all those things.

kek

The system in this state, isn't sustainable, and its downfall will create the biggest entropy momentum of entire humankind History. In this sense you're right, it will create strong organisms.

>Progress doesn't take ALL those things
for now it doesn't, but at the current rate of things it will eventually. try reading society of the spectacle. I also doubt you read ted's manifesto.

And if system collapses(somehow) i , do you really think primitivists will survive it?
All you need to destroy community of farmers is one bad harvest, all you need to destroy tribes of hunter gatherers is 10 guys with flintlock guns .

Hasn't done enough

He was absolutely correct and did nothing wrong

Also ask yourself why all those people don't exist anymore en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_indigenous_peoples_of_Brazil and Maori do .

a hero of our time

>Anarcho primitivism

t. Demoralised academic

Okay let's do a thought experiment. Take two groups of ten persons. One filled with 10 urban dwellers, computer scientists; the other 10 are people who know how to hunt, fish, they have basics in recognising edible pmants and fruits.
Which group has more chance ? On 100 simulation, which one will survive in a world where security, food supply and unpredictible events are modt likely to survive in a span of one year ? Seems pretty trivial for me.

Who has more chance to survive: your liver cut from your body or your lung cut from your body?
We are talking about societies, not groups of people.
And if society society suddenly collapses it won't happen in one second.
Those 10 urban dwellers, computer scientists will take guns from ruins of their civilization and enslave primitives and make them work for them.
And in case of global tsunami , Netherlands surely will have more chances to survive it than Papua New Guineans. Those 10 computer scientist will engineer a good dam, while tribals simply drown.

Extremely based and quite possibly also a red pilled individual. Did nothing wrong

Ted was mentally ill, in addition to or because he was a test subject of MK Ultra, and got his mind fried. Anyone who thinks he's written anything remotely deep is a retard.

irrelevant schizo sperg

based ideas cringe execution

>be Ted
>be highly regarded academic
>can use your academic background to spread your ideas
>instead decide seclude yourself to a cabin in the wild and bomb people

Attached: 1435671704547.jpg (387x461, 35K)

ameritard absolutly BTFO by based and funny Kraut

he lived up to his own words

based and redpilled. focus on the SOURCE not the SYMPTOMS ok.

Attached: anti-tech revolution.jpg (1000x1500, 1.51M)