I just finished reading the Unabomber Manifesto. His diagnosis is on point and his criticism of the leftists is amusing.
But I think that he is wrong about the causes of the problems, his premisses are not correct, he overestimates the value of the power process. For instance: I think that a stable/traditional nuclear family is much more positive to humans than an guy alone in the woods fully living the 'power process'. Yes, nuclear family would be included into the concept of the power process, I don't think that's the correct way to organize these concepts. But if Ted didn't conceptualize the way he did, he wouldn't be able to propose GLOBAL REVOLUTION. His solution is too ambitious. I wish he would have proposed something more modest: get away from technology, get off the system, try to live by yourself the best you can. The more people would do that, the more people would see the benefits. Get away from the big city, and try to live on your own the best you can. Perhaps the ideal solution would be a society that focused on independence: an anti-system society, instead of a anti-technological society. Those are my thoughts.
But one think I don't understand. There all sorts of activists out there. Why aren't activists/revolutionaries against technology, where are Ted's crew? Was he that wrong that nobody cares?
Why arer Israeli shills so obsessed with the Unabomber?
Nolan Cox
This. You could at least use a VPN with an american IP address.
Jonathan Butler
wtf are you talking about?
Jack Brown
Take off the meme flag.
Xavier Cruz
Because the only way to survive as a species is to become spacefaring people.
Josiah Torres
Because that would be fucking stupid >let's all stop using forks, forks are technology! >Omgod you're right, but wait, shirts are technology too! >oh shit! you're right! quick! get naked! and so on and so forth
Jaxon Collins
nigger kike faggot retards
Jason Garcia
How about read the manifesto before you post faggot
Gonna post the best pages from the manifesto while I'm at it. The part about the power process and surrogate activities are maybe the best thing I've ever read, overall the manifesto was the most enlightening writing I ever had.
Because we was a literal MK Ultra victim and way too redpilled for his time, or ours for that matter
He will be highly relevant in 80 years, screenshot this
Ian Jackson
the criticism is correct. The solution to "go primal" is retarded and self-genocide.
Just accelerate the process of MAD and teach your children to back-up their way of life with primitive skills for when the big reset happens and the cycle restarts
Jason Roberts
The criticism of technology, if I remember well enough, has to do with when it becomes so complex and interdependent on other technologies that it becomes an impediment to an individual's freedom. For example, your life is dependent on automobiles and the internet, but you couldn't possibly have a way of assembling and maintaining those things or the required infrastructure yourself. You must do the system's bidding to in order to have and use these technologies that are needed but are beyond your immediate control. It's also about the unintended consequences of technology. When cars were first invented, it was probably thought they'd only be a boon to making life easier. Now we have pollution, car wrecks, and ironically being stuck in traffic.
Grayson Young
done
Jack Bennett
>amusing trannie faggot detected teddy fucking dismantled and buried your weak ideology
Nathan Lopez
...
John Lopez
>I wish he would have proposed something more modest: get away from technology, get off the system, try to live by yourself That means you're the evolutionary dead end for humanity. As human beings we have an innate need to expand our territory and make living easier for us. Eventually this means we figure out how to leave our home planet. For that we need technology. Those who choose to remain Amish are guaranteed to go extinct sooner than later. And even when you leave society to live in the woods eating twigs and dead squirrels, you are still living under the mercy of neighbouring societies who could at any time choose to simply take over your forest and kick you out.
Justin Evans
It was amusing because I totally agree with him, he does it so well it's amusing. Nowadays his discourse is 'common sense' for anyone who is not a retarded normie. But at the time that must have been mindblowing.
Caleb Rodriguez
>When cars were first invented, it was probably thought they'd only be a boon to making life easier. Now we have pollution, car wrecks, and ironically being stuck in traffic. But we also have an incredibly efficient logistics infastructure thanks to them, where goods and supplies can be distributed around the continent more equally, you get information about events rapidly and if a disaster strikes, you receive help within days instead of within weeks or months.
Zachary Gutierrez
>Why there are no anti-technology revolutionaries yet, Jow Forums? People are dumb but not that dumb
What's your premisse? Ted wanted humans to have fulfilling lives, end modern psychological suffering. He wanted humans to be successful and happy in the present.
He wasn't planning the perpetuation of our species, through interstellar colonies.
Our society is paying a high price to enjoy all of this luxuries.
You're not understanding where he is coming from. Read the manifesto. You'll get a fresh perspective on the subject, like I did.
Dylan Young
You can lead successful and fulfilling lives with the help of technology, example the new leg prosthetic which actually makes the user feel the pressure of stepping on the ground with heels, as if the piece of plastic or iron really was his leg: youtu.be/PLk8Pm_XBJE
Technology is simply a tool like any other. Dear Ted would not have been able to air his grievances for the masses if it weren't for the technology of printing.
Jaxon Reyes
He is 100% right. Only dishonest people would say otherwise, and homosexualised urbanites.
Liam Cook
>Our society is paying a high price to enjoy all of this luxuries. How so? Violence, famine and diseases are at record low in the entire history of humanity. Resigning from an agricultural technological society is only going to bring happiness for those who find joy in living as hermits.
Dylan Harris
That's not the point. You also haven't read Ted.
Owen Murphy
my mom has never owned a cell phone.
Sebastian Davis
Its tied to the point. The more our technology develops, less proper "labor" we have to do and less we are directly involved with our daily needs. That is inevitable and as long as we can make sure its reliable, why should we not embrace that world? Figuring out ways to make living easier for us is why we are the top of the food chain in the first place.
Jacob Young
>People in this thread not understanding the differnce between technology and MCtechnology like smartphones and wifi toasters
Jack Nguyen
Because there is no innate issue with technology, that's a complete fallacy. Our use of technology due to current politics/culture is the issue.
Adam Ortiz
>Industrial Society and It's Future: Why there are no anti-technology revolutionaries yet, Jow Forums
because no one has a better solution than technological progression, probably communism taking over the world and then stagnation inherent in the system, but then that's just fucking gay.
Except it's you who doesn't understand the most basic fundaments about technology. If not ted, then I redirect you to Ellul, a prominent philosopher who tackled the technological question in its entirety. His analysis goes a lot deeper on the nature of technique and technology than TK. If you truly are interested about technology then you have already heard of him.
Andrew Taylor
A modern day technological revolution would be for the whole world to stop using facebook for a day.
That's about all we can collectively accomplish.
Aaron Jenkins
Wrong. Technology determines politics, not the other way around. Can be proven with a billion exemples in a matter of seconds.
Blake Harris
Not entirely new development, the wealthy had plenty of useless fashion tools and contraptions even back in history times, like a plethora of different kind of spoons and forks that were of very specific shape and were only used to eat something very specific. Tech hipsters are essentially like old times vapid nobility, their useless tech serves the purpose of a status symbol more than anything actually useful.
>support industrial society and the shift to mass politics and mass production >be shocked when your small, tight-knit communities with strong families and traditional values are replaced by 85-IQ mystery meat with no culture or identity
Alexander Moore
Possibly, it's because they're trying to create Jow Forumsabombers.
Carter Gonzalez
Then again what choice do you have on the matter? You either industrialized or you got swept by more powerful and efficient countries.
The guy was a prick. Knew him in real life. Total asshole.
Ryder Clark
What did he do?
Luis Robinson
>I think that a stable/traditional nuclear family is much more positive to humans than an guy alone in the woods fully living the 'power process'.
Ted never states or implies that living alone undergoing the power process is more important for human happiness than having a nuclear/stable family. These ideas are not mutually exclusive. It is important to have the power process AND have a nuclear/stable family.
But technological growth inevitably breaks down nuclear families and "destabilizes" them.
Jack Hernandez
this
William Perry
First, that quote in the picture is not from Kaczynski. It is made up Hollywood crap written to sound like it came from Kaczynski. Until you show me this quote in a letter in his handwriting or in a book published by one of his publishers or in the manifesto as it was originally published in 1995, it should not be believed.
And to answer your question on why there aren;t anti-tech revolutionaries yet: Widespread hopelessness and apathy together with extreme timidity together with ignorance.
Rear his two books "Technological Slavery" and "Anti-Tech Revolution" to understand more.
In his argument the power process is the most important thing. That's why I used this example. If you put the power process above nuclear family like he did, a person with a nuclear family should be less happy and fulfilled than a guy alone in the woods that lives all the other aspects the power process. If that's no true, Ted is not right, or he's being very imprecise.
I do agree that the power process plays a huge role. But not as big as he puts it.
>But technological growth inevitably breaks down nuclear families and "destabilizes" them. Yes, and that's why I really liked the manifesto. Although I don't agree with his premisse, it opened my eyes to things like this.
I didn't know that about the quote. Thanks for the suggestions.
I think hopelessness is what made Ted violent. He had such an ambitious idea of a revolution, still he knew really well how the world works, as we can see when he shrugs off criticism in his notes.
This conflict between what he believed and what was actually possible must have been so frustrating, that he became a terrorist.
Gabriel Gomez
Ted explains why there is an innate issue with technology in his manifesto. Read it.
Josiah Adams
Not only is the end goal of the Faustian civilization unobtainable, it is undesirable. More, more and more is all they can say like a script. And once they get anywhere they can't help but complain like a woman for more. I say we kill all of them with the tools they themselves made, so they can ponder on their idiocy in hell.
Jackson Cruz
user,... don't you think everyone here knows this side of the argument? You're not making any argument here, you're just showing that you didn't read Ted. Read it so you can understand where we are coming from.
>get off the system, try to live by yourself the best you can. I think this is what he did for many years. He probably didn't get the idea of bombs before he found new roads made in a forest he loved, or something along those lines. I agree with you though. Real revolutions don't happen until people are literally starving; and that's not going to happen so long this system is working. If a few bombs could collapse the world technological system, Islamic terrorists would've done it a long time ago.
We should seek self-sufficiency outside the system, or try to work outside the system as much as possible. Obviously we should drain the system from resources (legally) if given the option, such as taking benefits. I think the technological system will collapse on its own (maybe intentionally once the tech-elite won't NPC slaves anymore) if it's going to collapse.
Pinker Stinker go away. >frequency of physical violence is low but intensity highest >we are living in the toughest times in terms of psychological warfare >famine really was not that common in pre-agricultural societies >diseases were not common in sparsely populated tribal societies
At least read the ISAIF before making dumb arguments.
>Was he that wrong that nobody cares? People are perfectly content beating off to porn and eating cheeseburgers. No one cares about most societal issues, let alone actually addressing the ROOT problems that cause them.
>But one think I don't understand. There all sorts of activists out there. Why aren't activists/revolutionaries against technology, where are Ted's crew? Was he that wrong that nobody cares?
Actually there are, and one reason he stopped bombing is he realized there were.
Do a Google for "Ted Kaczynski" and "John Zerzan".
Jeremiah Lewis
People who haven't read his work actually think he's a left wing terrorist HAHAHAH.
>His solution is too ambitious. I wish he would have proposed something more modest: get away from technology, get off the system, try to live by yourself the best you can. The more people would do that, the more people would see the benefits. Get away from the big city, and try to live on your own the best you can. I don't think you understood his argument completely. Obviously he tried himself to get away from industrial society. He lived innawoods for years and lived on $1k a year. He did everything one can do... and then, one day, at a particularly beautiful spot in the wilderness was paved over with road and had cars running up and down it. THERE IS NO RUNNING. The system will keep expanding until there is nothing left. Humans are a speed bump. The earth is a speed bump.
Henry Jones
You obviously have not read the manifesto. The problem isn't all forms of tech. The problem is the types of tech that necessitate the use of the social structure system that industrial society requires.
Charles Lewis
To add to that, he actually suggests using tech to take down the system. Because he's fucking reasonable. nb4 killed innocent people. If he hadn't of done that shit no one would know who the fuck he was or read his work.
>Why there are no anti-technology revolutionaries yet, Jow Forums? people are too stupid to give up comfort for freedom
Brandon Campbell
yep.
David Davis
>Those who choose to remain Amish are guaranteed to go extinct sooner than later. Meanwhile in reality they have a birthrate of 6.2 per woman and exhibit virtually none of the health problems that modern society creates. We can't even keep brown idiots from raping our women, we aren't getting off this planet.
Owen Watson
Be more clear, what I didn't understand?
He could made a dedicated chapter in his manifesto about the never ending expansion of technology. That's different than proposing global revolution where the primary goal of each revolutionary is to overthrow the industrial system. Just because they build a road next to your cabin.
Somewhere in the manifesto he mentions that the revolution should start from the bottom. But at the same time he proposes simultaneous global revolution. That's what doesn't make sense to me.
My point is that if people start to participate in a more modest lifestyle they will be able to influence others. You can fix that by going off the system, influencing other people by your example, and having a lot of children as he suggested. You can teach your children, and they will understand and carry your sound ideas.
Austin Green
Exactly, having a village blacksmith or a firearm, or clothes or a house does not require industrial society. Mass production does. Hopefully we will be hitting the hump soon. The best thing that could happen to this planet and all non-human life is for industrial society to be canned and humans to encounter a massive reduction in population.
I'm not sure I believe in this. Ted is a genius, if he kept publishing, people would find out sooner or later. There is too many books that are popular today that don't have the quality of his manifesto.
What I do believe is that it wouldn't get popular as fast as it did. But still, is it popular today? I don't think so. And the worst thing is that most people shrug it off because they think is a crazy guy ranting against computers. Normies are biased when they read it, and they don't take it too serious. In the long run, his acts harmed his ideas.
Jayden Richardson
I think he goes into some the stuff you are asking about it in his recent work, Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How that just came out in 2016. Haven't read it yet though so I am not sure. The type of global revolution he is talking about will probably not occur. The system will not allow it and there are way too many "normal" people don't see any problem with the system. What this means is that the anti-tech revolution is up to the God of Nature or Nature (Gnon). Human population is at an asymptote and we are getting close to the sealing on the amount of resources we can squeeze out of it. There will be a correction that hopefully brings down the whole system.
Cooper Carter
> Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How gotta check that out
Ted actually acknowledges the importance of tribe and small communities in bringing human happiness. He is both explicit and implicit about this. For instance, he is implicit when he speaks of the alienation that tech systems causes.
Landon Young
>he doesn't understand that Uncle Ted never expected humanity to do what needs to be done
you require additional reading:
>Pentti Linkola: Can Life Prevail?
Benjamin Diaz
>oh shit! you're right! quick! get naked! >implying thats bad
Gavin Peterson
John Michael Greer is another one that gets thrown around, but he has some liberal priors that can get irritating. He tries to play the enlightened centrist too much on political issues and gets weirdly smug about future race mixing. Anyway, his ideas in and of themselves are good stuff.
Mason Wood
>But one think I don't understand. There all sorts of activists out there. Why aren't activists/revolutionaries against technology, where are Ted's crew? Was he that wrong that nobody cares?
If they don't use technology how would you hear about them?
Charles Myers
Are you serious?
Parker Reyes
BASED
Gabriel Gutierrez
yes if there are hundreds of thousands of people living in the wild right now cause of hatred of tech how would you know?
The righteous need not cower before the drumbeat of human progress. Though the song of yesterday fades into the challenge of tomorrow, God still watches and judges us. Evil lurks in the datalinks as it lurked in the streets of yesteryear. But it was never the streets that were evil. Sister Miriam Godwinson, "The Blessed Struggle"
Cameron Long
I asked about anti-tech revolutionaries, as Ted was proposing, not people that live away from technology. If they are recluse they are not revolutionaries nor activists. If they don't propagate the anti-tech ideas they do not make part on the overthrow of the system.
Asher Cooper
BASED
Ryder Baker
theres direct and indirect action, dropping out of society is anti-tech direct action
>where are Ted's crew how do you expect to hear about a crew against technology? do you think their gonna have a forum presence or something? lmao, retard
Wyatt Rivera
reverse image seached that... "The limits to growth" found... nice.
