Did he go too far?

The Netflix show was actually pretty good

he didn't go far enough

>jealousy and resentment destroy achievement
words of wisdom

This is a fun game, just hypothetically target the keystones, hypothetically of course

Envy

no

Attached: 1557868515142.jpg (800x800, 117K)

>Some fucking new age yoga guru
sauce?

imagine if he'd started his campaign in the 2000's and successfully killed mark zuckerberg or sergey brin or elon musk

Killing Elon Musk nowadays would be fucking kino. Imagine all these fedora normies crying after death of their hero.

Wikipedia says hes the "executive director" of a Tibetan Buddhist monastery in New York.

damm you would think the buddhists would be the first to understand that industrial revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for human society
but he's probably just incharge of some western shitshow

He accomplished nothing by removing the symptoms who were just functioning in modern society. Destroying the system that enables the cancer is the most effective action.

Just like the left/right dichotomy blames Koch/Soros for a lot of ills, getting rid of those figures accomplishes little unlike removing the system that created such individuals in the first place.

He didnt go far enough

The Dalai Lama said:
> If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.

Also, Pic and quote, related and from the real Dalai Lama

So, Buddhism doesn't, necessarily, seem to be anti-tech. (any expert on Buddhism here to explain this further that is --> Buddhist opinion on technology?).

Attached: Screenshot_10.png (655x280, 31K)

well ted isn't anti-tech either dumbass
i don't think the dalai lama was speaking about the techo-industrial machinery as a whole
just science from a knowledge seeker's perspective

for a thousand years the Buddhist Vihara university system was the locus of cutting edge mathematics. The concept of zero comes from Nalanda, see the Bakshali manuscript, our numeral system and algebra also came out of Buddhist Viharas. So no, Buddhism is by no means anti-tech. Our entire technological society, indebted as it is to the international university system, stems ultimately from the Buddhist prototype that was copied by Islamic madrassas which were themselves the blueprint for the university of Paris, etc.

The misconception simply comes from the Euro-American counterculture where a cherrpicked, neutered form of Buddhism was creolized with anti-formalism and the avant-garde, so Buddhism served as a proxy for the return to eden ideology of the hippies.

Well written and interesting post. Bless you user.

yes, it was the wrong choice to kill some of the people that he attempted to. I concede that it built the publicity surrounding his work, and I concede that the work itself is illuminating (if not crucial), but it ultimately hurt his viability as a possible martyr and put the power to spin the situation even further into government clutches. I'm sure more people heard of him this way, but they can write him off pretty easy, as you see in all these threads.

If you'd read the thread you'd know most people here agree with him :)

This absolutely infuriates me. How do you betray your own flesh and blood like that. Moralfags need to be stopped.

Attached: Angry Goose.jpg (437x431, 19K)

Would Ted have had a bigger influence if he stayed on at Harvard and used his prestigious position to harp on about the pitfalls of technological progress? Possibly. Instead he painted himself as a crackpot mad bomber. He could have influenced the thinking of a generation of students at elite colleges.

God god. Why do people who are hacks have to attack the work of serious people? Why couldn’t the brother just live his life and let Uncle Ted live out his remaining days in peace?

Interesting.

I don’t know about him being easily written off. I heard some NPR-voiced liberals on a podcast saying positive things about his work while of course feeling the need to specify that they don’t support his methods because their audience/bosses/selves are utter fags.
I think Reddit has a generally positive opinion of him as Le crazy genius driven mad by MKULTRA, a claim that Ted himself denies. Possibly because Reddit likes Good Will Hunting and there was a Netflix (?) series about Kaczynski where he’s portrayed relatively sympathetically.
He was loved by anarchists in the 90s and 2000s. I think cancel culture and the takeover of the anarchist left partially by trannies, along with Ted’s non-PC views and mannerisms (the general cut of his jib) may have cancelled him along with anprims and anti tech people in general (although I don’t know this, this is based on the online, and perhaps those people aren’t so online).
The third position people tend to love his work, although they’re less hardcore anti tech and more just recognise that it makes problems and has many many downsides.
Ryan Dawson likes his work.
I’m kind of not concerned if midwits like his work. In the current social setting they’re not useful. Although perhaps it would be good for them to like his work since it might get them to question tech censorship. But they’re not very systemic thinkers, so they’d really need people drumming the propaganda into them 24/7 from all angles to internalise it. And that whole endeavour seems like a waste of time intellectually.

Yes, like these people aren't just pretty faces of their big companies.

Yes, it was all because he couldn't find any coffee beans in the woods.

Attached: self-reliance.png (1762x808, 1.48M)

>implying influential people open their own mail
>implying they would continue opening their own mail after other influential people were receiving bombs in their mail

The worst part is, the bomber had given his word to stop with the publication of the work. So his brother knew that Ted very likely would have stopped. He didn’t even bother, afaik, to try to contact Ted and talk things over, to see what the situation was. And it was done to Ted, who obviously would hate being cooped up in an all artificial environment worse than anything. Imagine turning your brother over the the feds knowing what they’d done at Ruby Ridge about 4 years earlier.
I guess he might have justified it with the meme that since McVeigh and his brother were both terrorists what his brother did was equivalent and they should both go to jail.

Finally, a Yea Forums meme I can wrap my head around

There are weak points, I assume, again, speaking entirely hypothetically and historically with reference to a dispassionate evaluation of the situation. Brevik, for example, realised that the children and young politicians of a major party were gathered and vulnerable, and Norway did reduce its intake of migrants down to almost nothing after he attacked. This is not endorsement of what he did. It’s an attempt to understand the dynamics of terrorism in a scholarly manner, and it’s ridiculous that I have to preface and postface everything said about these topics due to concerns about potential police harassment.
Perhaps the US is different, but I imagine influential and potentially influential people gather.

>it’s ridiculous that I have to preface and postface everything said about these topics due to concerns about potential police harassment.
I think the preface and postface would help you in law, but the police would probably still be able to investigate or harass you. Kind of weird how people treat every outcast-type kid like they've killed hundreds of people, despite mass shootings being incredibly rare. Not just police do this, but citizens as well. I wouldn't want to hurt any living creature, and I constantly get treated by people like I murdered their kid or some shit. The ironic thing is that they see the "outcast-type" kid has visible signs of psychological trauma, and the kid doesn't necessarily want to hurt anybody, yet they bully the already traumatized kid all for the sake of their delusional self-righteousness. I don't really see what they get out of bullying an already-traumatized kid for no reason aside from self-righteousness. It's quite disgusting honestly.

>Not just police do this, but citizens as well.
Police are citizens. You mean "civilians".

t. pedant user

Yes, that's what I meant! Thanks, user.

The ends can justify the means, problem is that he had no end in sight, only meaningless slaughter of pigs.
For such a bright mind, the resulting carnage of his findings was fairly ordinary. The personal revelations could have been channelled in such a way that would serve purpose had he been more specific in which aspects of technology were most to blame for the detriment he foresaw; the untouchable corporations who consolidate power to snuff out people they deem objectively immoral, alternatively speaking, their competitors.

Attached: 81M2+uENYqL._SL1500_.jpg (1062x1500, 172K)

>>implying influential people open their own mail
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

Those small-time names are worth nothing more than their 1 vote in congress. Their 1 vote worth of power will be replaced by another democrat. That person was meaningless the entire time, he was only a placeholder for a political party.

Maddening to think that we have built a society where the on-topic discussion of an attack surface could be interpreted as a threat to those in power, I'm just glad that civilians still have the right to privacy so that interpretation of "threats" wont flag you as a potential suspect who presents a risk to those pure members of society who don't have such discussions.

jealous is really more correct for this scenario

he could have bombed empty buildings or infrastructures or something. he had no reason to just kill people like that.

>without technology, humanity has no future
i disagree with this statement. people lived for tens of thousands of years without electricity.

Humanity must be defeated.
Technology must be saved.

>The worst part is, the bomber had given his word to stop with the publication of the work
That's stupid user. How could you trust a mad bomber who kills innocent people? What his brother did not "betray" him and Ted changed his mind 3 years later and bombed a whole family? I wouldn't have taken the risk to have innocent people dying just in case my psychotic brother really meant what he sent to the FBI.

>but the police would probably still be able to investigate or harass you
Quite possibly. I'm at the point where I don't respect their authority very much. I'm a law abiding person because I respect custom, but being labeled a bad person by these people doesn't particularly send a shiver down my spine. I'd just direct them to a lawyer if they wanted to make trouble. Police in my country put a guy in either a state or federal database as an outlaw bike club member because he annoyed an individual cop one time. Over here, that means constant harassment. I just don't respect these people, so their opinion doesn't matter much to me other than their ability to potentially disrupt my life. But my family is loyal enough to me and I have enough self-belief and ability, and a cool enough temper, that the authorities deciding to fuck with me isn't particularly threatening. As long as they don't shoot me, which police here don't do, I'm pretty much fine. They do make asses of themselves and we do have absurd terror laws, but I think I'll probably be alright. And if they do try to imprison me for talking about things I'm not supposed to, well, that doesn't bother me much because the moral/stigma power of prison isn't particularly concerning to me at this point. Plenty of good people have been put in prison, and the West now openly targets journalists. In my country, there have been raids on the state broadcaster by the federal police, and we have refused to help our most prominent journalist abroad when America decided it didn't like what he published. So yeah, I think it's that I don't respect these peoples' moral authority, and I feel somewhat confident that people I want to know and who I respect the most wouldn't care about a conviction. I should emphasise that I've done literally nothing wrong though. I just want to be able to attempt an impartial analysis of the contemporary world, and that world involves terrorism, so it requires an impartial analysis of terrorism. If the state wants to come at me over that, whatever. I'm not interested in being needlessly antagonistic to them either.

(cont from above)
But yeah, I can't really respect the West much when our authorities do things like make Yea Forums inaccessible via mobile data and censor eight chan entirely.
I prefer us because we're us, but it's by a narrowing margin. I felt freer when I lived in China. I prefer partially Westernised people to Westerners because they don't live in a mental straightjacket of our discourse taboos.
I feel some loyalty to the West, but damn. It's getting to the point where Russia and China are arguably less corrupt and a more free mental environment.

Who the fuck cares? He's family. I think we have a serious disagreement about values. For me, "faith, family, folk" sums it up pretty well. Religious view first, then family, then political unit.
He's also a brilliant sociologist. Tbf, would the people he might hypothetically kill contribute as much as him? Where is this belief in the value of individual life over all other things? That's just so... liberal. Where's the concern for people in the future? Where's the evaluation of people based on their quality rather than just being a human being?

You cannot blow up a social relationship.
One cannot target a single part of that which enframes us.

Attached: heidegger.jpg (403x403, 34K)

nigga you just went full retard.

>mathematics
>tech
lol no

ASS

This totally reads like the ramblings of a 13 years old edgy kid.

God, Heidegger was a dumbass.

As this user said: , mathematics has absolutely nothing to do with modern hyper capitalist technology that constantly creates artificial needs. All technology insofar as it strives for the western, secular concept of "progress" is completely antithetical to all religions western or eastern; technology exalts the realm of becoming over the realm of being.

The Dalai Lama is simply wrong here to say the Buddhism will have to chance because of science since Buddhism and Science are not even concerned with the same thing; that is, unless you are a philosophical materialist that attributes all conciousness to be simply matter. I will admit that I am no expert on Tibetan Buddhist metaphysics, but I don't believe that they would hold this position.

>One cannot target a single part of that which enframes us.
All parts are not equal. Decentralised parts yield less power to commit harm, and the destruction of large faceless corporations would form a vacuum to (hopefully) be filled by smaller parts less capable of consolidating so much power to oppress their competitors

> pic unrel.

Attached: uebaruxsupiz.jpg (2118x1352, 286K)

This argument reminds me of when people were claiming that Subway bread was toxic because it has dihydrogen monoxide in it(which is a chemical used in basically every factory worldwide)

ASS

Doesn't mean that all parts are equal.
And how exactly would you destroy an international corporation?

fuck off glowie

Reddit shitposting is worse than the holocaust.

That's not a counterargument.

>implying that wasn't a meme co-opted by Dow to deflect genuine criticism of unstudied chemicals, many of which have later been found to inflict harm upon consumers

Attached: 1531381766531.jpg (960x960, 130K)

Claiming that a chemical is harmful solely because it has industrial uses is a logical fallacy.

>Woah dihydrogen monoxide is just like all these unstudied chemicals that permeate society and fuck up our health!!
>100% of people who consume dihydrogen monoxide die, isn't it funny how similar it is to the chemicals being pumped into our environment day after day!
>haha i love consumption of modern products

Nobody has ever said that, but good try. You are only proving how delusional you are.

You deserve everything society has to offer. Consume.

Why do anarcucks never give a straight answer when asked what society should really be like?

Cope

>logical fallacy
reddit is the leaky gut of the global state psyche, the Monsanto flu of a sprawling cosmological ghetto that will one day kill more than the holocaust every single second.
Drink up, shitbag.
youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM

Attached: Science is Experience.jpg (2128x1151, 430K)

the state of your endocrine system though

>The Scientist man said it is good. We can trust him guys!! (Just ignore the huge corperate interests influencing what data gets out hahaha)

Not an argument. If you deny that this is a logical fallacy then you lose any integrity in your argument. I don't necessarily disagree that some chemicals being used in food are toxic, or that other chemicals need more research. I'm simply pointing out a fallacy in your delusional thinking.

in thoughts yes ,
in action no and who gives a fuck

Holy shit, the amount of total subhumans on Yea Forums. Please tell me these people don't make up the majority of posters. I doubt that these people read at all.
Subhumans refer to

If I am bad then I don't even want to say what a post without an argument would be :3

I disagree completely. Ted was one of the most thorough and meticulous killers in living memory. The government spent massive amounts of money looking for him over the course of nearly two decades and he still wasn't even on their radar until his brother came forward to rat him out.

Heidegger wasn't suggesting agriculture is grossly harmful like the others, he was just stating technology shares an essence, perhaps a little melodramatically.

Seems weird to compare agriculture to three different ways of killing large amounts of people, and expecting people to not get this impression. If he's referring to something specific (ie. The obesity crisis) then maybe I would agree with him, but otherwise I am unable to say that agriculture is harmful.

didn't go far enough

agriculture usually creates sedentary populations which grow rapidly, which thrusts the human out of his natural huntergatherer role. Pastoralism is a bit of an edge case.

Well, the green revolution caused massive population growth which can be seen as a bad thing.

He got a million bucks for it.

And to answer OP, some might say he didn't go far enough.

>He didn’t even bother, afaik, to try to contact Ted and talk things over, to see what the situation was.
He actually did, Ted refused to talk.

someone built a road a few days from my cabin!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
i must murder people now!

Attached: 1565735675022.jpg (1000x1500, 364K)

...dont be angry, but you sound like a moralfag.

Why shouldnt he betray a successful domestic terrorist to be "the guy that broke the case."?

He gets karma coupons and disney dollars.

Have you ever met feuding siblings? They can cold war for a decade or more over accumulated grievance. Sell a shitty sibling out to the Feds? Not a problem.

He was not capable of that. The system infuriated him; needing to exist inside it for this kind of slow grassroots campaigning as a bottom bitch would have driven him mad.

If he had talked to Ted it would have put Ted on guard. Ted has a twelve cylinder brain, controlled explosive crafting, and zero fucks to give; the rat has a four cylinder max, knows how to fold his knees behind his head, and has standard normie treasures: house, car, big title, little prople to order around.

No duh, if he aggro'd Ted he wont have a chance.

I received Technological Slavery in the mail yesterday. I was very happy to snatch it for few dollars now that it's out of print.
Sadly, it was packaged in one of those soft plastic bags and one of the corners got bent. Otherwise the condition is perfect.

That and the fact that Ted never taught at Harvard, that is simply where he got his undergrad degree. Also, people would have ignored his opinions as those of some sheltered, deluded intellectual.

Reddit go back.

Attached: capitalismworks.jpg (1500x1000, 1.27M)

Attached: ASS.png (513x431, 93K)

Yeah.

His manifesto is one of the best things ever written though.

Too bad the rest of his writing is shit.

Is it really that good?

I skimmed the intro part about liberal pathology and closed it. It looked kinda boring. Should I give it another go?

>being concerned for the overall wellbeing of one's society is edgy within liberalism
Not an encouraging picture of liberalism or liberals.

>You cannot blow up a social relationship.
Ok, what are wars then?
What about when "terrorists" succeed in some of their goals?
This is, imho, cowardice in not wanting to say something that might appear unvirtuous, and/or self-release from potential responsibilities.
Violent conflict has changed human social structures for millenia.

In what way? Congrats. You quoted a Hollywood movie. If it's so retarded, point out how.

>dude, farming is the same as nuking lmao
Yk, I kind of get what he's saying.

Unironically yes.

job

>ITT:urbanite technophiles seething

It's so dishonest. I happen to like technology, but pretending that the things Teddy K said weren't valid makes it IMPOSSIBLE to counteract the tendencies he identified, either in oneself and one's family, or on a broader level. Plus it just obscures reality. I don't think he took this angle much, but the degradation of human biology is very noticeable, as is, I would say, the transformation of humans into castes. Similar to insect colonies. The "bug men" of meme phrasing. It's like religious faith with these people.

Well, war tends to be organised by the state and a military ready to die for that social relationship. In the case of civil or revolutionary war there is already a disintegration of the relationship. And this is in contrast to individuals or outcast groups who do not have a lot of power.
Part of the position is also connected to the anarchist attempt to prevent militarisation.
Succeeding in some minor material goals is not the same thing as destroying the foundations of a society.
Perhaps it is cowardice, or it could just be realistic. But if you have a working ideal that would allow individuals and small groups to dismantle international corporations and state organisations completely (and without any of the corruption of the victors in the process) I'm sure there are people who would love to hear it.

(Strictly speaking theoretically, pacifist here.)

3-3-3.org/docs/Kaczynski's comments on McVeigh.htm

he's actually fairly rational and level headed

I think he should've gone on hunger strike in the middle of Time's Square or somewhere very public. He should've threatened to kill himself instead of hurting others.

Read it and tell us what you think!

I feel that Ted didn't have enough love or joy in his life - seeing how that should be the ultimate reason for us to move away from societally dependent technology.

Thanks, that was a good read

I agree with his analysis of the problems in Industrialization, but I disagree with his solution. Antinatalism, force sterilizing all human beings, and anti-humanism are the answers.

...so we just drive the human race to extinction?

Yes.

Two thirds of this quote are true though.

>the zero
>a good thing
Don't talk about what you don't understand, pollutant.

idiot
This.

>what society should really be like
it shouldn't

>I'm sure there are people who would love to hear it.
And I'm sure I'm not going to fedpost to btfo you in an internet argument.
I will say on a scholarly level that individual acts of terrorism have obviously changed world history, so it's clear that not simply non-state but even non-organisational and even non-crowd violence can affect the world.
People can do this ineffectively, imho, like Tarrant (I think he absolutely got the type of policy response he wanted, but that this policy response will be detrimental to his longer term aims), or effectively, speaking purely in terms of desire of perpetrator vs effects of act, like Brevik (wants reduced immigration to Norway, gets reduced immigration - although there's some ambiguity here in that he made the group he wanted to represent [racialist European christians] look terrible [although perhaps he opened them up to the idea of mass violence as future community defining boundary acts - who knows - I would generally say that he hurt his cause outside Norway via bad publicity and helped it within Norway via policy change]).

>Succeeding in some minor material goals is not the same thing as destroying the foundations of a society.
>destroying the foundations of a society.
What do you mean by this? I guess if your aim is to completely abolish hierarchical social relationships in a geographical area, that's not possible via individual violence. But it's not possible because that's not possible in general. I don't there's ever existed human sociality that hasn't included hierarchy, even if the level of formality and the number of ranks has varied.
Pacifism also hasn't worked at achieving that goal, so imho your critique is a bit of a non-starter.

Don't know about you guys, however, I would sell out my mother if she had done something illegal.

Mossad

Never engage with t*chnophiles and "rationalists".

>evolution shouldn't happen
Well, that's not really your call to make.

linkola unironically admired ted in a time where it really wasn't cool

>his brother sticks the knife in when Ted writes a brilliant sociological analysis
more on this?

BASED!

Attached: I'M IN CONTROL HERE.webm (640x640, 2.92M)

His essay made me hate nerds

I think you'd be surprised.
Blood means very little to most people these days.
It's quite a traditionalist notion that people have done away with and more now than ever.
Loyalty has almost become a sin rather than a virtue one misstep and you get put on the chopping block.
And the thing is this perfectly illustrates what Ted was getting at.
His own brother got swallowed up by the system, swore allegiance to it through no less than concrete action, and essentially ceased to be his brother at all for anything it could be worth.

Why is this retarded forced meme? It's so imbecilic it hurts my eyes.

Contrarian parasite