Reading Kazynski's manifesto was like all the thought's i've had throughout the years complied into one cohesive essay

checked but gay

The fact that he was crazy doesn't mean that he was stupid user. And his writings are insightful to a large degree.

>t. incel
have sex

he got mkulta'd basically a lot of his craziness was probably because they broke him

did you even read his manifesto you cockgobbling doublenigger?

even if the guy was fucked in the head it doesnt invalidate his ideas

He wrote a manifesto explaining that.

Attached: ted2.jpg (410x410, 73K)

>mkulta'd
suure he did. he was just a sperg with a penchant for maths.

The guy was a victim of discrimination and a victim of free-will thought. Like most who only want what is the unachievable, he ultimate decided to end it by taking those around him to hell with him. People are often victims of being lead astray from happiness. It happens so much. It's no wonder people decide to kill others and themselves. Because they can't live up to their expectations of happiness.

No happiness, no life. No joy. The world needs to end. I cannot express my desire and prayers for this world to end. It's awful. It's a nightmare to live. People simply cannot achieve happiness without being victims of discrimination or victims of bullying.

Why gigving a shit about these story around he's sexuality ?

He could be sucking nigger that would be the same, the only thing that matter is the argument he give in his manifesto, and what he say is true.

Attached: 98k7j8ck05221.jpg (671x900, 118K)

too romantic for my taste, read nick land instead lad and revel in the incandescence of it all

How do you know you're getting MK Ultra'd anyway?

The reason africa got colonised and native americans were wiped out was because they had inferior technology. They didnt evolve and grow, and were left behind.

Except he wasn't fucked in the head, the psychiatric diagnosis was most likely politically motivated and (((they))) had to portray him as some tranny schizo in order to dismiss his ideas altogether. Apparently, the psychiatrist conducting the diagnosis was imposed from the above and other psychiatrists were prevented from confirming the diagnosis which basically attests to the malicious intent on the part of the government, so talking about 'muh psychiatric analysis' is just an easy way to discredit the most enlightened political manifesto of our times.

>Preach it

For several years of undergrad (starting in his second year, at age 17), he was subjected to psychological experiments that wouldn't get past the ethics committee today and were headed up by Dr. Henry Alexander Murray, a professor who is known to have been employed by the CIA and, due to his area of expertise, assumed to have advised the MKUltra program. This is well-established and was discussed during the trial and in mainstream media.
theweek.co.uk/86961/mkultra-inside-the-cias-cold-war-mind-control-experiments

Thats real life son,all those Hollywood movies you americans watch are giving you false expectations about life.

My buddy is a guard at AMAX, talks to ted once a month or so. He is incredibly arrogant and thinks he's god gift to humanity. Not completely incorrect in his ideology though.......

From from 1959 to 1962, during the height of Project MKUltra, he was literally part of an experiment at Harvard run by a glownigger psychologist.

Attached: glowing intensifies.png (480x466, 139K)

industrial society?

>tfw software engineer but also know Uncle Ted did nothing wrong

Attached: 1555129637280.jpg (1000x1000, 49K)

most contrarian 21 year old males with iq over 110 have this experience. he has some good critiques, but at the end of the day his worldviews aren’t useful in reality.

"this experience" is more than just
>lefties bad, durr

Psychiatry's main roll in the Soviet Union was political suppression. The location has changed but thr techniques are the same.

what?

the inescapable conclusion seems to be that no individual choice can be possible in a sufficiently technologically advanced society. everyone's just going to be another piece of the machine.

>Except he wasn't fucked in the head, the psychiatric diagnosis was most likely politically motivated and (((they))) had to portray him as some tranny schizo in order to dismiss his ideas altogether. Apparently, the psychiatrist conducting the diagnosis was imposed from the above and other psychiatrists were prevented from confirming the diagnosis which basically attests to the malicious intent on the part of the government, so talking about 'muh psychiatric analysis' is just an easy way to discredit the most enlightened political manifesto of our times.

This is exactly what is taking place in modern day industrial EAP programs. Psychiatry is used to eliminate dissidents. Sham peer review, laboratory developed drug tests capable of being tampered with, psychiatrists who are not psychiatrists, and felon doctors who, in many cases, are psychopaths. I was required to fly out of state and pay cash money to a defrocked oncologist convicted of siphoning morphine from the drip bags of dying cancer patients. I strongly suspect the man was a homosexual as were a large number of the men who were in charge of my case. I was sent to an LGBT counselor that sent me to the rehab that committed the crime. The union was easily 66% homosexual and closeted bisexual men, the nurse who kicked me out: homosexual, the FAA chief psychiatrist: homosexual. Meanwhile, I am not gay and they are the only ones who apparently aren't mentally ill.

throughout history, 95% of the people have been the pawns of the 5% with a vision and the means to realize it.

Attached: stoddard.jpg (540x609, 48K)

What if we killed the 5%? Would we just stop moving forward?

yep

Reminder that no one ever puts forth actual arguments against Ted, but simply uses ad hominem attacks along the lines of “B-but he killed people so he’s wrong!” The fact is, Ted have us a scary prediction of the future, that makes sense if you look at history and see the trends. The least we can do is make sure that the dystopia he is describing will never happen. I don’t think we have to become primitivists, but we can at least take his ideas into account and have a CONSCIOUS advancement of technology, lest we blindly march on until we couldn’t rise out of our situation and change it even if we wanted to.

The first half is pretty dope as soon as he gets into the implementation though it's cooky town

>haha! yeah! fuck lefties! right on ted!
>wait, I have to give up my video games and movies?

Attached: 7566101970_a8805e43b0_b.jpg (1024x742, 120K)

Yeah and Hitler was a one balled Homo
Miss me with that gay shit

>>wait, I have to larping day of the rope style
That's the problem with this unrealistic implementation

Glow harder bro

Attached: glows.jpg (563x808, 38K)

Yes, of course, but how do you know if you're part of an MK Ultra test yourself?

This. And Everyone here absolutely must read Ted's first book, "Technological Slavery" (2010). It greatly expands on the manifesto, but is just as easy to read.

If one wants to really go down the rabbit hole, and to really get at the root cause of the modern crises, than one should absolutely read Ted's second book "Anti-Tech Revolution" (2016) though the ideas it contains are more complex and require more effort from the reader. That book is the core of wilderness anti-tech thought, IMHO.

Attached: Anti-Tech Revolution Hydra web.jpg (4800x7200, 2.51M)

when you add up everything that has happened in your life, things that were said and things that were done, its simply too much to be coincidence. one of the ways treatment is being used to stimulate trauma and split personalities is by milieu control, guaranteed personal financial destruction, and extortion of credentials using the 12 step confessional to arm themselves which knowledge to destroy you. This lacks any informed consent. Its violation of international law when you get specific on this.

this.

youtube.com/watch?v=n5ITyifcYy8

Attached: 1549327381113.png (545x526, 653K)

very smart dude. I don't agree with his premisses, so I don't believe in his revolution. i do believe that the Amish approach to technology is more viable.
but his diagnosis is truly great.

Attached: 1552277429930.jpg (1184x682, 109K)

Gotta love how the media pushes gender relativism and unbridled degeneracy as a liberating virtues but still smears thought criminals with this fucking garbage. Fuck off.

Attached: 1556252069657.png (800x546, 261K)

U want to shit in a hole , wash clothes by hand, basically spend your whole life working just to live then go ahead dipshit. Technology rules

His diagnosis of the problems of our post-industrial society were very much mostly accurate. He only failed to provide a feasible solution (which is a monumental task to be honest) and was incorrect in assuming that some sort of successful anti-tech revolution would arise organically, but it is entirely possible that the system will inevitably collapse under its own weight like he predicted, the problem with knowing this is again gleaming any useful solutions from this knowledge (the most popular ones I have seen are homesteading, self-reliance, prepping, etc...) and not having any sort of accurate predictive abilities at when this collapse will occur can lead you to making plans that will turn out to be extremely detrimental to your long term success.

Attached: Uncle Ted.png (609x717, 188K)

My criticism is that I'd rather live in a pastoralist/agrarian community than a hunter gatherer one tbqh

Indians already live like that

The solution is the revolution
How that happens no one can predict, we can only work towards and facilitate it
Two Kinds of Technology paragraphs

I don't know how you see that his proposals for an anti-tech revolution are unreasonable since you don't give any argument here, you just flatly state your opinion. Also, it's unclear what you mean by "organically." Kaczynski never stated that a revolutionary movement would rise naturally, if that's what you're suggesting.

It sounds like you have never read his book "Anti-Tech Revolution" wherein he addresses all your concerns.

Attached: Anti-Tech Revolution Robots and Drones Hell web.jpg (4944x7416, 1.84M)

HAHAHAHA! so based! awesome post. high-IQ. based.

love and respect. lololol

Attached: Anti-Tech Revolution Planet Scissors web.jpg (1125x1500, 2.49M)

Take the Tedpill.

Attached: 860F236D-6212-4F08-A043-8304896AB02F.jpg (426x382, 60K)

Why do you reply like a faggot my good man

You poor third-world normie.... you're like, 50 years behind in understanding of human society.

At least Marx was right in the sense that political awareness would only come in the first-world, when modernization and liberalization would bring enough education and independent thinking for people to understand the true source of their problems...

You poor poor unfortunate man...thrust out of your village and forced to swallow an unending series of pro-tech propaganda and education. You had to see whole ecosystems, whole ways of life dirupted and destroyed by technology, and then have the technological system come in and tell you that by further supporting its growth, you could live in a sterile apartment with a Tata away from all the problems in a nice clean cubicle working for Google....all while the world around you crumbles into dust.

so sad...

by the way, how are the Maoists doing in your country???

you are mkultra retard

lololol YOU ARE SOOOO BASED! much love and respect brother(or sister)!

Attached: suspicious.png (236x236, 27K)

Where is your response to this?
(you're both fucking retarded faggots)

Bro, relax. This isn't a joke and it isn't sarcastic. I'm letting you know how much I appreciate your posts.

We could totally solve the problem if everyone were aware as Ted is. If only countries didn’t care about capital growth in itself, then we could halt the mindless advancement of technology and control population growth. We can have technology while not being slaves to it. We can totally use amazing technologies for biological and agricultural processes while not losing autonomy and living unnatural lifestyles. The main issue is competition. Countries are competing against each other, and individuals within those countries are competing against each other. The new society would have to be global, or at least the whole world would have similar societies, which are not focused on growth but creating healthy, natural lifestyles. And I still think it’s possible for technology to advance, too, as long as it’s not used for some sort of monetary gain or cautiouslessly distributed to everyone. Just because we find a new technology, doesn’t mean we should use it. A relatively small group of intelligent people with Ted’s attitude could research and oversee local villages, allowing humanity to thrive and still protect itself against future dangers. We can’t go full primitive mode, or we might find ourselves in an apocalypse we can’t escape. The answer isn’t no technology, or mindless growth of technology, but a healthy balance fostered by awareness of the dangers and benefits of technology

grasia vieja

Read you lazy nigger

>We can have technology while not being slaves to it. We can totally use amazing technologies for biological and agricultural processes while not losing autonomy and living unnatural lifestyles.

Wrong. That's goes against the ENTIRE POINT of Ted's work.

>The main issue is competition.

Yes, and this is part of the reason why the prediction and control of technology is fundamentally impossible. Competition among competition among self-propagating systems is a fundamental aspect of nature and is operative not just on human societies but among all living and non-living propagating systems.

If you're too lazy to read an entire book, just read the first two chapters of "Anti-Tech Revolution."

Hes an idealist, not a pragmatist
Of course technology brings its problems, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for all humans across the globe to simultaneously give up technology.
At the end of the technology is power, and there is no way you can ever persuade man to give it up
And for the West to give up technology, OUR technology, would be suicide, because chinks have no scruples

sorry for the typos

>If everyone were as aware as Ted [...]
Yeah but not everyone is. This is just a fantasy.
>We can’t go full primitive mode, or we might find ourselves in an apocalypse we can’t escape
What do you mean?
>The answer isn’t no technology, or mindless growth of technology, but a healthy balance fostered by awareness of the dangers and benefits of technology
Ted himself says this is impossible. Technology begets more technology, both inter and intrasocietally. In a society, how do you impose restraint? People like the Amish do it, but they're an anomaly. Between societies, the more technologically advanced one will sooner or later impose its will on the other.

In my opinion, Kaczynski's analysis of current society is accurate, though his proposed solution is unrealistic.

>MKUltra victim denies he's been MKUltra'd
>man who aggressively rejected tainting his message with the insanity defense rejects the notion the government fucked with his brain

Truth has been spoken. It's the same thing on a lower level with Poles and imigration. Due to communism and the lack of experience with niggers and civic nationalism we can see growing support for the EU from Poland, when considering the young population at max 25.

Poos are nothing but usefull puppets till technology makes them useless eaters, outside powers will start a war with their neighboors to wipe them out. Just like they do with so many other cultures. 2020 is what they seek, Matrix is what they already are (nothing but flesh energy for machines of the west) and soon they will become a burden to be rid off. Like we got rid of useless or annoying species. And that's nothing against the third world. It what we all will face, just shortly after.

He felt that civilization was a mistake and so he tried to destroy civilization itself by blowing people up through the mail.

>all humans across the globe to simultaneously give up technology.

That;s not necessary for an anti-tech revolution to be successful. All you need is a tiny tiny tiny minority of revolutionaries to force the system's collapse.

This is basic common sense. But, you still need to re-read Kaczynski, and read his two book.

Also, you don't even have to look at so large a scale. Just take individual people. It's hard as fuck to reject technology, shit's addictive.

He wasn't an incel.

Kazinski was a charade to scare the people back into wagecuckdom.

>All you need is a tiny tiny tiny minority of revolutionaries to force the system's collapse.
Forgive me, I'm a lazy cunt and I don't want to read his books, but how would this work?

We simply genetically engineer people to be intelligent and not greedy and competitive. There, problem solved. Get your pessimism out of here. Ted isn’t right about everything.

>we simple change humans to no longer be human
>every communist ever to exist

Basically revolutions are brought about by a tiny minority of the population, who are organized and dedicated to accelerating and exploiting the tensions in society.
In practical terms, if a revolution caused for example the destruction of the electrical grid, people would be forced to give up modern technology whether they want to or not.

Please be trollin

I'm in a position due to health issues where I basically have to start generating income via the internet which is beta and fucking gay. How do you do it and not want to kys every fucking day? I mean, knowing you've read Teds work and all.

Attached: Tiny House Movement.jpg (534x401, 53K)

Dude, I refuse to believe you're that stupid.

Competition and natural selection is still operative among intelligence no matter how you go in intelligence. Humans are vastly more intelligent than...say, ants, but there is no evidence to show that we are any less competitive than ants are.

Then there are other problems of a fundamental kind: who is to be doing the genetic engineering and according to what system of values are they implementing the engineering. And who is determining what constitutes greedy and competitive and according to what standard are we judging that.

In order to engineer people, you would have to have a technological system to implement the engineering, and that technological system would itself be subject to the laws of natural selection among competing systems.

Furthermore, this says nothing about the affects on human freedom, autonomy, and dignity that come with engineering humans according to the needs of society.

>not wanting to improve humans

this. in a nutshell.

Attached: Anti-Tech Rev - Yellow Robot Poster Web.jpg (5400x7200, 3.19M)

But it wouldn't last because humans would just rebuild the system.
Maybe not in the same way as before but lots of rural white people are very self-sufficient and resourceful
It is impossible to get rid of modern technology completely

>I want to target innocent people who aren't involved in the true source of my problems
Nigger tier mentality. I mean, you are Irish, so you guys are the niggers of the white race. I shouldn't be surprised that you're chimping out like this.

Just remember, though, that when you devolve to nigger behavior, that is why the kikes have won, and that is why they deserve to keep winning. If you cannot be better than your enemy, how do you expect to overcome them?

How would revolution destroy the electrical grid? We can just rebuild it you know.

I pray for the mighty Solar Flare every day...

That's a gross oversimplification but sure

That'd be the objective of the revolution
Wipe out technology to the point that it can't be salvaged and restarted.
If it is restarted so quickly, the revolution failed

You can't imporve a such complex system without fucking it up, just liek huamsn do time after time. Even simple shit like vaccines lead to us a worse resul in terms of survivabiliy without constant revaccinations, no passive immunity for infants leading to far higher death rates in this population, lower immunity to certain cancers etc. Heck we can't even make in vitro babies without completely fucking the kids over health and psyche wise. We don't understand our selves nearly as much as we think. You want to change human nature on a scale which would requiere us to go against our basic biological imperative, which is competition. What you will breed, will be meat puppets for those which still have this urge. Do you want to be a flesh golem for those in power? Because that's how you get there.

Depends on what you mean by "modern technology." individual-dependent technology will probably be around for a long time, because there is no way to prevent someone from, for example, making a plow. But organization-dependent technology does go away when the organization structure that the technology depends on breaks down. There are many reasons why it won't be possible to restart industrial civilization after it breaks down. A lot of it has to do with resource extraction. But this is a much much longer topic.