Is his manifesto worth reading?

Is his manifesto worth reading?

Attached: 3B5EE8E3-DB69-4006-BA66-C63BCD9700AE.jpg (700x933, 118K)

Other urls found in this thread:

mediafire.com
pewglobal.org/2019/04/22/how-people-around-the-world-view-diversity-in-their-countries/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling
youtube.com/channel/UC2eYFnH61tmytImy1mTYvhA/videos
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

No

Yes

Maybe

I dont know

Can you repeat the question ?

Dude, any perspective is worth reading. It's not always about entertainment value.

He was a nut, but it's interesting.

>He was a nut
Imagine being this much of a nigger

Imagine this being the only thing you're able to contribute to a conversation about the Unabomber.

YOUR NOT THE BOSS OF ME NOW

Yes. He's a fucking god

It's not.

It's unpolished and has no philosophically value.
It might make an entertaining read for public-at-large but any sophisticated thinker won't find anything of worth in it.

Go back to cumtown

Attached: 1111111111.png (581x513, 233K)

I'm a lefty but this is spot on oof

How come liberals are placed on the left if this is what leftists do

>The leftist seeks to satisfy his need for power
And this is a bad thing?

Attached: Nietzsche_1882-59d83beeaad52b0010eb91cc.jpg (768x1025, 115K)

You obviously fall into the "unsophisticated thinker" category but you are just unaware of it.

You cannot imagine a higher level of thought than your own mental horizon. You are a mediocre intellect and that's why you code javascript for a living.

How thick are your wrists btw? femme...

In not a single line of your post you could deconstruct Mr Kaczynski's arguments. All you do is hide behind "big words" to impress brainlets. You may fool your parents like this, making them think you are smart. But everyone with a university degree looks past your bullshit.

Come back at me with a less constructed ad hominem and AFTER your read the text and provided a real anti-thesis to it, fuckwit.

>the chad domestic terrorist

yes, the man is a genius and has a suite of really on point criticisms about the modern world. If you are on Jow Forums you might find it especially uncomfortable, but then again you may understand acutely what some of his criticisms are all about and how atomizing technology can be. His criticism of Lefist activism and the Left mindset in general is incredible.

Not even his best. This one's better and its TECHNOLOGY related.

"Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those of our universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else’s academic freedom. (This is “political correctness.”) The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control."

Attached: 1 Tf-AJevE88OJcUFrrzgXbg.png (735x492, 312K)

I personally think Liberalism is a term that has been sucked into the event horizon of Leftism today to make Leftism more palatable. At one time, a Liberal would have been a Tory voter in Britain or a moderate Republican voter. Even the Tea Partyu is a kind of "radical" Liberalism. I think the Left became so much like a multi-tentacled monster during the Cold War that they needed something more palatable and adopted the term, but the modern meaning is just a Lefty that prefers glacial reform over eruptive revolution.

They are not doing it in a Nietzschean way. Neechee would have prefered an aesthetic and value based revolutionary power eruption. Not a creeping infiltration of institutions that perpetuate the old world of Liberal Democracy but just make you a bigger cog in its machine.

Reminds me of how leftists usually use tech to dox people or they invade tech communities to push their agendas. Much like the FreeBSD drama last year.

Pretense of knowledge

Can you point to some example of what you think is superficial about the manifesto and what you would counter those points with. I admire Ted, but I want something to test his thesis with too.

Your grasp of things does not extend beyond
the immediately obvious. To those like you, life makes perfect sense and you go about your day oblivious to it all, chugging redbulls and writing shitty javascript with your limp wristed hand.

The fact that the unabomber only concerned himself with politics and other half-baked unpolished predications about technology bearrs witness to an unsophisticatd mind.

Politics is not important. It's for people whose mental horizons cannot go beyond very well defined limits.

Yes his manifesto is 100% worth reading.
I think it's fucked up that he's locked away while somebody like Obama who has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people across different countries is praised and has millions of dollars.
I guarantee if you put Ted Kaczynski in charge of a signifcant part of society you would start to see life start getting better for everybody pretty quickly.

You should write poetry, since rhetoric and the art of discussion is not really your strong suit.

The most interesting thing in his corpus (what is compiled in Technological Slavery) is the interview he gave.

Other than that, the only thing I still think about regularly is the idea of "small-scale" technologies, meaning tools that can be conceived and implemented outside an industrial framework. The anti-lefty parts aren't the ones to focus on.

He might be a loony but it's worth reading. It's a well-documented piece with valid points, not some internet meme-fueled school-shooter manifesto

>Politics is not important
This is one of the most stupid things any human being can possibly say.

Rhetoric... and you believe it?!

Attached: Capturefasdfasfasfafa.png (708x400, 327K)

made me chuckle
one persistent troll there

"leftism" isn't real

Is it the same retard making these threads or is there some reason an obscure eco-terrorist from years ago has a following on this board?

lol, what the bartender? he aint trolling user, he is the most based character in the game.

There are no "leftists" or "far-right"

There are only Jews.

I've seen them with my own eyes go out into the woods late at night and release pollution of garbage bags into the air to cause global warming.

literally who?

A
AA
I
I
I
I

This guy's power level is too high.

Jews congregate late night in rural areas and national parks to release pollution out of large green garbage bags into the air to cause global warming.

>How come liberals are placed on the left
They aren't, never were. I've always found it quite entertaining that Americans do call leftists "liberals" when that's the exact opposite. The rest of the world refer to people on the right as liberals and people Americans refer to as "liberals" are called socialists in the rest of the world.

If you know exactly why Americans refer to socialists as "liberals" then do explain. btw, I have heard some American people use the term "classical liberals" (=what the rest of us just call liberals) to illustrate that they are using the European/global meaning of that term. Is there a reason Americans are backwards on this or is like with not using the metric system: just stupidity?

As a nation, America are teenagers, loud, obnoxious, and think their simplistic understanding of reality is correct when it isn't
Liberals being commies is a false association drawn because being liberal was progressive, and communism was marketed as "progressive" too, so if you're a liberal you must be a commie because all progress leads to communism, apparently

>the metric system
disgusting. miles are the superior system of measurement.

>dude trees lmao

Any good no-bullshit sources for his stuff? I don't want a (((revision)))

Attached: f5e14e21c2c4d097eef59a93a40a4506.jpg (1196x1605, 224K)

nobody cares enough to revise his "work"

archive.org is where I got his shit from

here is the aaaaarg copy

mediafire.com / file/rnse9n3m5v7b15k/theodore-john-kaczynski-industrial-society-and-its-future-the-unabombers-manifesto.pdf/file

Because it's unscientific. It's not evidence based. It's not logical. It's not testable. It's a long angry rant at the modern world. You can't argue with it rationally because it doesn't have any logical substance. If we take some lines from
>the leftist seeks to satisfy his need for power through identification with a social movement
Pseudo psychology with no evidence.

>Leftism is a totalitarian force
He doesn't specifically label what policies leftists are pushing is totalitarian. Taxes? Welfare? Single payer healthcare? Affirmative action?

>the leftist is motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a goal
More pseudo psychology

>the leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities, when that is attained he wants statistical equality for minorities
This is one of the few examples of evidence he offers, but this also isn't specific. It's true that 77% of Americans support diversity, is this what he means?

pewglobal.org/2019/04/22/how-people-around-the-world-view-diversity-in-their-countries/

If we assume this is what he means, it's not evidence for the long and mostly pseudo scientific claims about the leftist psychology. And even if it were, it and most of his manifesto lacks any real, practical suggestion about what to do. It's appeal is emotional, and you can argue with it emotionally for example by casting his evidence as proof of the leftist never ending battle for equality, but it's all hot air.

Oh yeah? I don't believe your rhetoric about rhetoric, only nigger in Hong Kong.

Attached: 5z4blzq4sd321.png (250x250, 119K)

The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

>Pseudo psychology with no evidence.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

>He doesn't specifically label what policies leftists are pushing is totalitarian. Taxes? Welfare? Single payer healthcare? Affirmative action?
Yes he does, they favour minorities.

>More pseudo psychology
see wikipedia link

>This is one of the few examples of evidence he offers, but this also isn't specific. It's true that 77% of Americans support diversity, is this what he means?
If you really have to ask. It just seems you want to disagree with everything presented to you, so there is no real point in arguing about this. You are unable to mould your world view.

Attached: 1243124.gif (400x300, 913K)

I wonder who is behind this post.

It's not that we call Liberals "Leftists", but rather that the people who call themselves "Liberals" are actually Leftists.

Liberalism (in the proper usage) in America was adopted by Puritans as it gave them a way to get out from under the yoke of England, not only politically but also economically, religiously, and culturally. It gave them a tool to break apart what they saw as a system that was evil, wicked, and sinful. They did just that, and the rest is history. However, the Puritans didn't actually believe in Liberalism, they just saw it as an tool for getting out from a system that was (in their eyes) oppressive and evil. So, when they were no longer under said evil system, they ditched it. The modern "Liberal" thus refers to themselves as a Liberal as a means of an origin myth of sorts because in America political legitimacy ultimately comes from continuing the vision of the Founding Fathers.

Thus, in order to defend their Puritan beliefs, Leftists HAVE to be "Liberals" because otherwise they're exposed for what they are: a bunch of church ladies that are scared of female sexuality who wring their hands at the thought of people having fun and not being forced at gunpoint to listen to their autistic screeds about morality. They justify the fact that they clearly disagree with the Founding Fathers by simply stating that times change and if the Founding Fathers were alive today, this is what they'd believe.

To that end, because these people are ~50% of the country, people who actually hold the beliefs and values of Liberalism (again, as it actually is) have to refer to themselves as things like "Libertarians" and "Classical Liberals", although these two terms aren't quite equivelant to what "Liberalism" in Europe means (you could think of them then as meaning "American Liberalism", with the usual quirks Americans have).

Absolutely, but don't become a faggot like that Linux guy on jewtube who thinks he's all figured it out by vlogging his infantile and lukewarm insights in the forests.

It's quite ironic, Jow Forums is probably the most anti-technology board.

Link? This sounds entertaining.

yeah...says the guy posting on his 2000$ laptop on a highspeed fibre connection.

We are conditioned to be bound to technology since birth. It's like an addiction, or prison of sort.

>here is the aaaaarg copy
what's an aaaaarg copy?

thanks for the reply user. I would say some of the most insightful stuff ever written is not testable but resonates with readers.

I could say, for example, the following..... that the American worldview or historical perspective is one that sees things in terms of 4 year periods and most people there talk of events by their ruling administration, whereas English history is measured by Royal Dynasties that last a couple of centuries.

I think there is some truth to that, but I have no proof. However if asked for proof, all I can do is say this is the broad pattern I have observed and holds water most of the time I have tested it. See my pic related for the GOAT McLuhan's analysis of how we can spot patterns of truth in the world around us.

Attached: quote-faced-with-information-overload-we-have-no-alternative-but-pattern-recognition-marshall-mcluha (850x400, 61K)

your fault not technology
you're free to stop using it whenever you want

youtube.com/channel/UC2eYFnH61tmytImy1mTYvhA/videos

His Linux videos are alright though.

>I would say some of the most insightful stuff ever written is not testable but resonates with readers.

Attached: 3b6.jpg (353x400, 20K)

You are living in a world where an attempt to B R E A K - T H E - C O N D I T I O N I N G is seen as rhetoric. They already have you user. The Globalists have gotten to you.

care to explain what you find so objectionable. I provided an example in my post of what I mean.

>talking about breaking conditioning
>believes in the nationalist/globalist rheotric

Yes. He predicted leftism, technology making people weaker, technology being used to control people, technology being a corporate bitch and many more, 30-40 years ago. He literally predicted everything wrong with technology back when the terminal was the only available HCI method.

Attached: 1555184281804.png (450x399, 218K)

aaaaarg is a invite only platform to share publications based around academia.

Attached: apu_graduate.png (680x638, 250K)