Was Ted right?

Attached: Ted's book report for a continuing education class 3.gif (700x900, 60K)

Attached: Ted's book report for a continuing education class 4.gif (700x900, 59K)

Attached: Ted's book report for a continuing education class 5.gif (700x900, 59K)

he was best friends with Tim McVeigh and one of the 9/11 bombers in jail. His life is just a walking fascination

Yeah he actually befriended the guy and was on very good grounds with him until McVeigh was executed.

Attached: Ted's book report for a continuing education class 6.gif (700x900, 18K)

is he still alive?

Ted is, far as I know, is. A lot of people have sent him fan mail over the years, many of them from Jow Forums regulars. He's a math PhD himself, but this is what he had to say about pursuing a career in mathematics.

Attached: 1530187088457.jpg (3264x2448, 929K)

wow hes right. God its like Alexander visiting Diogenes, the man is just so pure in his beliefs

Friendly reminder that conservatives are just as much an enemy to us as leftists.

Attached: 1546817283747.jpg (870x700, 66K)

Yes, he’s 76

Yes. Very much yes

Attached: F27B1A83-1854-464D-9F08-AE1245231809.jpg (940x788, 204K)

Attached: 1549803879751.png (2048x2048, 3.08M)

Friendly reminder that in the Spanish civil war, anarchists, bolsheviks and republicans all fought together against the fascists. There's only one real alternative to the establishment and it starts with an F.

Attached: coke0.jpg (448x694, 43K)

This is accurate, but you guys need. to. understand.

Women is what causes all of this. Do NOT let them out of the kitchen again. They don't THINK about things. They don't MAKE good decisions. They just don't care about that kind of shit. They want to do vapid shit. You can never let them be involved with "important" things.

>yes, bite them right on the ass!
oh, i thinking of this ted

Attached: ted-bundy-in-court-1.jpg (900x693, 59K)

What's with all the Tedposting lately?

Ted is a hero and a role model to us all.

Attached: 1482787356441.jpg (202x250, 7K)

> Trannies
> right about anything

Just another psycho

a few things but he was mostly off base.

>a few things but he was mostly off base.

which pretty strongly indicates that his work is a load of subversive propaganda.

Who wrote that on his behalf? I can't make out that name and I'm curious as to who is handling his mail.

The letter to his brother is some real heart-breaking shit. You can feel the rage through his words. His bro sold him out and doomed him into a fate worse than death.

Attached: letter to his brother 1.jpg (904x1149, 278K)

Attached: letter to his brother 2.jpg (904x1125, 266K)

>attacking technology
>doesn't mention race

Close.

Imagine doing that to your own brother.

Attached: letter to his brother 3.jpg (904x1147, 262K)

Is there a place online that has all his stuff collected? I've only read his manifesto.

in fact, most of the philosophy and reading Jow Forums recommends is subversive propaganda, with a few exceptions here and there.

the real truth is rooted in game theory, basic human psychology, and social dynamics. any political theory or commentary that does not explicitly address the central role of these concepts is bunk.

Yes.

Jow Forums, tight lipped as ever. why doesn't anyone ever want to have a good chat with me?

Attached: mg.png (2400x2400, 122K)

you're telling a board full of subversives not to push subversive propaganda.
literally fuck off retard.

i'm not telling anyone not to do anything.

i am only posting my own thoughts on the subject.

and everyone seems to either be a subversive or subverted.

No

Attached: chadtranshumanist.png (1400x650, 228K)

He was right in sentiment but not in action. The solution is suicide.

>literally fuck off retard.

and also, it doesn't really bode well for you if even a retard can figure out your game.

He has a very good analysis. Most striking is his argument in Anti-Tech Revolution that humankind is not in control of its destiny; there is no driver at the wheel, and even when we try to steer the sheer brute force of history always has its way. Pretty dismaying, desu.

Partially

He mentions race but it's basic

I highly recommend sitting down and reading it; lots of meat in there and will get you thinking.

idealistic nonsense with a few pandering tidbits thrown in

Damn. For years I've been comparing psychology to alchemy. They were groping around and bumping into some truths but so much nonsense as well. Unfortunately, psychology, if it ever does adopt a truly rigorous scientific method, will slam into so many politically incorrect conclusions it will be shut down by the mob.

Psychoanalysis is to psychology as alchemy is to chemistry. In my opinion, psychology is still in the baby steps and advanced neuropsychology is what takes it into being a real field of science.

Reminder that Ted, although courted by them, absolutely despises anarcho-primitivists along with all leftists. He is more of a Luddite Pessimist.
Don't comment on things you have not read.
>anything that does not directly address my pet topics is not worth reading
You are a philistine and blockhead but you are espousing a very, very common attitude on Jow Forums. We should be encouraging people to read as much shit as possible, even and especially if you disagree with it. If you aren't a moron it isn't as if bad ideas will seem good and you will be secretly subverted. I'm reading Adorno right now and I, somewhat hesitantly, recommend it. His writing is shit and he is blinded by ideology, like all of us, but there are some good insights into how culture serves to reproduce the culture from which it comes and why certain forms and motifs are popular under liberalism etc. It is a terrible slog but I am glad I'm getting through it.

Keep in mind I am not anti-tech. But I think Ted's analysis is a good one to keep in your back pocket.
this is a pretty good short essay on (((anti racism)) and the like theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-system-s-neatest-trick

Attached: 1549819249863.jpg (1184x682, 109K)

Jow Forums took the blackpill.
>Disillusionment with Trump and ability for change within democracy
>awareness of the issue with technology
>CRISPR babies in China
>US Department of Defense coming out with an AI strategy
>Ebola and fears of engineered bioweapons
>technological mass-surveillance
>automation inevitably causing mass-unemployment
Let's be honest here: a 1930s political ideology is not sufficient to face the challenges of techno-dystopia. No, ''jews'' or ''blacks'' isn't the magical problem that we have. We would still have these issues without them.

What are the solutions to our problems?

Attached: Collapse Cult.png (1200x758, 678K)

Just read it yourself. It's not that long.

>What are the solutions to our problems?
That's the real kicker. There's no solution, except singing in the rain as it washes down civilization into the gutter.

Attached: dance of hana chan.webm (946x522, 2.58M)

I miss the hipsters of the 1930s. Much better than the ones we have today.

Attached: 1930s hipsters.png (635x415, 312K)

>>anything that does not directly address my pet topics is not worth reading

i'm saying that it's probably bunk. whether or not it's worth *your* time to read that bunk is a personal matter.

>You are a philistine and blockhead but you are espousing a very, very common attitude on Jow Forums.

i think my line of reasoning is pretty sound. you don't have to be an elite psychologist to understand that politics and human behavior in general revolve around human psychology and game theory. ideology is fantasy, and any political treatise based on or involving "ideology" is fiction.

For me it is a combination of Traditionalism(1), being techno-critical(2) (but not anti-tech) and anti-liberalism(3).

1. The nihilistic character of the modern western man has become his downfall and suicide. This is part and parcel of the necessity of alienation and atomization from community, land and god (defined broadly) which is required by a mass society based on consumption of manufactured products. The counter to this is not to hearken back to some dead tradition but rather to seek out connection (to the universe and each other) and the Eternal in ways that fit our time and place in ways that can bring us together to enact our Will upon society, to make it as we see fit rather than be mere casualties of the brute force of history and market pressures.

2. Technology is not evil but neither is it neutral. The man makes the tool but the tool soon shapes his hand. The ways that technologies and ideologies use us is worthy of critical thought. Does a technology help us or is it a bandaid to a wound that it itself has inflicted upon us? Is social media a way to bring people together or is it a recuperation of our own alienation made profitable to a handful of corporations.

3. The Newtonianization of our ideas about man, the universe and society have not liberated man but rather made him everywhere a slave.

dude technology bad lmao

>i think my line of reasoning is pretty sound. you don't have to be an elite psychologist to understand that politics and human behavior in general revolve around human psychology and game theory. ideology is fantasy, and any political treatise based on or involving "ideology" is fiction.

and if you're trying to write non-fiction, you keep as close to the facts as possible. you don't change something or obscure your message just for the hell of it. you take great pains to ensure that it's as easily understood as possible.

so either ted had no clue what he was really talking about, or, he was writing fiction.

Do you think that Teddy is right in that the technological system is really fragile and some random individuals can take it down? It sounds so unlikely and unbelievable. Why wouldn't an anti-West state have done so already. Even if I thought it was possible, I'd personally not take action because it'd just launch humanity into a tiresome progress-crash cycle. New technology is created and adopted because it gives it wielders power: this truth can not be avoided so long we are Human.

I think homesteading might be one of the only ways to come through the tech-dystopia unless one willingly wants to join the Borg-cube.

So you're driven by a fundamentally christian mindset? I guess that works too. My only concern is really to guarantee that my children and the children of my beloved ones will not die due to technology.

>Does a technology help us or is it a bandaid
This type of thinking only works when you're in total control of all societies. You can limit the technology your tribe uses, but not what other tribes use. Tribes that take the pain of technology will dominate tribes that refuse the pain. The most insane will win.

Teddy said in one of his books; ''The good parts of technology can not be separated from the bad parts''. Which I believe to be fundamentally true. Either there's tech progress and all the bad shit that comes with it, or it's rejected fully. Cherrypicking the good stuff isn't possible.

Attached: huomstead.jpg (900x598, 1.24M)

>i think my line of reasoning is pretty sound. you don't have to be an elite psychologist to understand that politics and human behavior in general revolve around human psychology and game theory. ideology is fantasy, and any political treatise based on or involving "ideology" is fiction.

people are so desensitized by the constant lies and non-sequiturs of propagandists that they never even think to use this sort of reasoning.

>ideology is fantasy,
agree
>and any political treatise based on or involving "ideology" is fiction.
this is an ideological statement. It is impossible to make normative statements without a priori judgements. Ideology is, sadly, inescapable.

>game theory
Interestingly, Ted's theory of history could be said to rest on game theory. His pessimism about man's agency is based not eh idea that, well, some one will always spoil the pot.
Say you and your society decide not to take the ecocidal borg path and live happily in cabins in Montana. Well, odds are that a more power hungry people who have fewer scruples will adopt the Borg path and will eventually roll over you. Even if the whole world swore off all the evil shit, over a long enough time line a man (or society) or two will pop up who think 'fuck this gay hippie shit' and proceed to dominate the globe and history with their army of elephant poaching cybernetic warriors. In short: history is an amoral fight to the death between power structures and we have no control. The game is in control.
Ted's idea is you have to cripple the world technological system so that it cannot return effectively limiting man's power. I am doubtful about the feasibility of this.

The Ted bundy tapes are on Netflix. I cant believe he almost escaped twice. Swear he was able to charm people like the devil

They can't even take care of themselves. When left to their devices they'll poison themselves with whatever the charming snake oil salesman is hawking, both physically with fake medicine and mentally with nonsense ideology.

Ted did well on his book report.
I'd give him an A.

Why don't you read his manifesto and decide for yourself? He is not a raving lunatic. He was a published phd in mathematics and his writings are coherent and logical.

That's the whole point. You can't bring it down. The technological monster machine is so entrenched that even if you tried, you could never destroy it.

>So you're driven by a fundamentally christian mindset?
No. By 'god' and Eternal I mean man having a primal connection to the world around him. I phrase it the way I do because people are familiar with these words.

>>Does a technology help us or is it a bandaid
>This type of thinking only works when you're in total control of all societies. You can limit the technology your tribe uses, but not what other tribes use. Tribes that take the pain of technology will dominate tribes that refuse the pain. The most insane will win.
I understand Ted's position as I've said here To be honest I am not sure the position to take. Ted's proposed solution seems improbable to me. I only hope that we can make technology grow in a more desirable direction. This may be less probable than Ted's position

.>Either there's tech progress and all the bad shit that comes with it, or it's rejected fully.
Technological progress is unavoidable. People are too clever. I only wish it were slower so that humans had time to decide if shit was worth it or not.
>Cherrypicking the good stuff isn't possible.
Man I hope this is not true.

His manifesto was prescient and right about nearly every topic he discussed, from the rise of identity politics and racial divides to the dehumanizing effects of technological progress. The only questionable part was his advocacy of terrorism. I would say there is absolutely no hope for the future of civilization and brute violence will only be met in equal or greater measure from our rulers.

>>ideology is fantasy,
>agree
>>and any political treatise based on or involving "ideology" is fiction.
>this is an ideological statement. It is impossible to make normative statements without a priori judgements. Ideology is, sadly, inescapable.

a written work based in part or in whole on fantasy is fictional by definition. if ideology is fantasy, then so are the political commentaries that depend on ideology.

>The game is in control.
>Ted's idea is you have to cripple the world technological system so that it cannot return effectively limiting man's power. I am doubtful about the feasibility of this.

any sane person would be doubtful. this is teds ideology, his non-sequitur. "technology can empower our adversaries so we should destroy technology", or "technology should stop progressing". this is his fiction.

>the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for mankind

>I phrase it the way I do because people are familiar with these words.
That's what threw me off. The words used and the pattern reminded a lot of the christian posters. I'd probably consider myself a Traditionalist too if I was more familiar with Evola, Guenon and the others.

>hope that we can make technology grow in a more desirable direction
I find this extremely unlikely. The historical trend has been that technology concentrates power in the hands of increasingly small number of individuals. These people want to dominate every relevant aspect of other people's life because that gives them more power.

>Man I hope this is not true.
I find only one exception for this. That's if a separate and quiet community is created below the eyes of the techno-society. Technological societies are only afraid (and eager to destroy) competing societies. This is a cliché but it feels like the only way to win is not to play the game. Think: primitive tribes in Amazonian jungles. Their society is so radically different that they occupy a different ecological niché. Technological society considers them so irrelevant that they ''fly under the radar'' of the tyrannical technological society.

Attached: blackpilled.jpg (1024x640, 56K)

Propaganda relies on logical fallacies and incorrect data, presented in such a way to trick or intimidate the readers into accepting the message.
Ted's manifesto states it's hypothesis clearly, and the logic is valid, as you would expect from a mathematician. You can read and judge it's veracity for yourself.

>Think: primitive tribes in Amazonian jungles. Their society is so radically different that they occupy a different ecological niché. Technological society considers them so irrelevant that they ''fly under the radar'' of the tyrannical technological society.

that is until globohomo technohell society needs their resources. then it's either integrate or die.

The problem with psychology is it is just a high level analysis of extremely complex patterns. It can't really get anywhere without proper human nueroscience, a field which is extremely limited by moral concerns and a generam inability to observe the massive collection of fine grained neural behavior.

Funny how pol can be anti-Polish as fuck at times yet all praise this guy, who was of Polish descent.

his conclusion is absurd. you said so yourself.

but this is part of the trap too. the more you get involved trying to dissect some work of fiction, trying to pick out a gem or two, the more mental power you waste trying to debug their fallacious reasoning. it's not worth it.

groups, social dynamics, human psychology, game theory. you observe it directly every time you talk with someone or go outside.

reading uncle ted has really blackpilled me

right now im reading mishima and seppuku is seeming more and more imminent by the hour.

at least i will leave behind a beautiful corpse

Attached: mishima.jpg (500x375, 21K)

How would you know if it is actually bad?

Fuck off with your defeatist nonsense

Yes.

>Cherrypicking the good stuff isn't possible.
Ted says this as well. But like you he doesn't offer any valid arguments for such a huge claim. I disagree with this statement.

Yes. His manifesto was pretty spot on.

You have no clue what you are writing about. Did you just discover game theory or something? Go back to class, kid.

Absolutely. Will the technological system destroy 100% of all nature to make Earth a mere resources mine though? I don't see why, as even in the wildest Death Star projects you wouldn't need that much materials. Naturally I could be wrong, but I see little other options.

The depopulation agenda aims at destroying billion of useless consumers in cities and villages, not the 1000 natives in the Amazonian jungles. I believe the global population will be very small in the 22th Century, as only those in charge of techno-society are ''required''. Pic related is pure fantasy as the need for workers disappear.

Attached: 1550855201999.jpg (1547x878, 342K)

not saying i've come to any finalized conclusions yet or that i'm "right".

but it's hard to not feel powerless among all this. ironically ted talked about this learned helplessness or how people are too afraid of what might happen to take any action.

i am another product of this gay civilization

Attached: death.jpg (401x277, 15K)

>only those in charge of techno-society are ''required''

their will always be the need for an underclass of labourers to be used as cattle. i don't think machines will ever match that efficiency of nature. if they do there's always a good chance that they break down and need temporary replacement.

>Go back to class, kid.

all outta speed, can't concentrate.

anyway, i know exactly what i'm talking about, and you know that i know exactly what i'm talking about. ted was full of shit, just like everyone Jow Forums shills for or against.

that or the machines end up taking over and the remainging "elites" are actually just soulless servants for the machines. like jf gariepy suggested with his revolutionary phenotype concept.

look at whats happening to the planet with HAARP and pollution in general, this is a war on the planet
forbes.com/sites/michaelmarshalleurope/2018/10/30/animal-populations-have-fallen-60-per-cent-and-thats-bad-even-if-they-dont-go-extinct/#572848ff4cf1

>ted was full of shit
then you have not read his work, your opinion is discarded

Holy fuck, now I hate his fucking brother, what a fucking cunt

Then you can surely explain to me his opinion why cherrypicking to the most part good technologies, like so medicine etc, is not possible, ri-ight?

Hello JIDF

Because it's all interrelated. Advancement of medical industry cannot be sustained or maintained without other branches and fields of technological system. You cannot maintain it because it is reliant on high-scale technology and necessitates this model of human control. Kaczynski writes about it, simply read his manifesto.

Now read Bronze Age Mindset.

If we go by philosophical materialism - humans are biological machines. We are hugely inefficient as potential workers. Even a very stupid artifical intelligence will BTFO humans in almost anything. There is no pattern or action that a machine can not do. Maintenance and repair will be handled by robots as well. There's nothing special about troubleshooting.

I understand if this is hard to accept, but it should be comforting to know that nobody is more replaceable than others. Everyone is equally useless to the technological society.

This is one reason I expect the people in charge to go for hard depopulation. If there is even one favorite animal specie the people in charge have they'd rather depopulate 99% of humanity to save that animal.

Attached: teddy.png (1154x754, 944K)