Whats the final verdict on Ted?

He didn't say anything special:
>mentions bad parts of technology
>claims only solution is the complete reduction of civilization back into an african mud-hut hellhole

Also be careful. He was literally MK-ultra'd and had gender identity issues (he thought he was trans). Mentally ill people shouldn't be taken too seriously, but you can still learn a few interesting things from him. His anthropological work is his best in my opinion. His critiques of modernity are amateur and overly psychological. His positive suggestions for moving on are laughable and will end up putting anyone who follows them in jail for life like him.

because hiding in a cabin and mailing people bombs like a coward is the exact same thing as Napoleon

False. You know that I am a God on Earth to you. My life is infinitely more than your's.

if my family constituted a propaganda organization ("P.R") and manipulated the public to favor industrial timer mining i would have considered then expendable.

the deaths that Ted inflicted are nothing compared with the deaths that technological society is causing and will cause as climate change intensifies.

in fact, we can consider ourselves lucky if mankind can survive the ecocide caused by industrial civilization

Pls user save us

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

i agree with this guy

ted k's philosophy is the equivalent of saying that, in order to combat video game addiction, just go back 40 years, take away video games. what a grand idea

There’s no denying, however, that revolution against the technonindustrial system will violate human decency and the principles of fairness. With the collapse of the system, whether it is spontaneous or a result of revolution, countless innocent people will suffer and die. Our current situation is one of those in which we have to decide whether to commit injustice and cruelty in order to prevent a greater evil.

For comparison, consider World War II. At that time the ambitions of ruthless dictators could be thwarted only by making war on a large scale, and, given the conditions of modern warfare, millions of innocent civilians inevitably were killed or mutilated. Few people will deny that this constituted an extreme and inexcusable injustice to the victims, yet fewer still will argue that Hitler, Mussolini, and the Japanese militarists should have been allowed to dominate the world.

If it was acceptable to fight World War II in spite of the severe cruelty to millions of innocent people that that entailed, then a revolution against the technoindustrial system should be acceptable too. Had the fascists come to dominate the world, they doubtless would have treated their subject populations with brutality, would have reduced millions to slavery under harsh conditions, and would have exterminated many people outright. But, however horrible that might have been, it seems almost trivial in comparison with the disasters with which the technoindustrial system threatens us. Hitler and his allies merely tried to repeat on a larger scale the kinds of atrocities that have occurred again and again throughout the history of civilization. What modern technology threatens is absolutely without precedent. Today we have to ask ourselves whether nuclear war, biological disaster, or ecological collapse will produce casualties many times greater than those of World War II; whether the human race will continue to exist or whether it will be replaced by intelligent machines or genetically engineered freaks; whether the last vestiges of human dignity will disappear, not merely for the duration of a particular totalitarian regime but for all time; whether our world will even be inhabitable a couple of hundred years from now. Under these circumstances, who will claim that World War II was acceptable but that a revolution against the technoindustrial system is not?

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-morality-and-revolution

Embarrassing handwriting. His print is that of a child's. There is no way anybody can take a man writing like that seriously.

>oh no dont take my video games how will i live without being glued to a shiny flickering screed like a laboratory rat while all around me the world burns

do you have any idea how pathetic you sound ?

Attached: 1532269214957.jpg (722x750, 77K)

Boomer talking points. Ted K's case is an obvious one of mentally ill boomerism.

Straw-man. Learn to read. That wasn't his point at all.

Okay but any actual arguments?

However, human behavior and human attitudes can be manipulated. Environmental damage can be shielded, up to a point, from public scrutiny; with the help of public-relations firms, a corporation can persuade people that it is environmentally responsible; advertising and marketing techniques can give people such an itch to possess a corporation’s products that few individuals will refuse to buy them from concern for the environment; computer games, electronic social networking, and other mechanisms of escape keep people absorbed in hedonistic pursuits so that they don’t have time for environmental worries. More importantly, people are made to see themselves as utterly dependent on the products and services provided by the corporations. Because people have to earn money to buy the products and services on which they are dependent, they need jobs. Economic growth is necessary for the creation of jobs, therefore people accept environmental damage when it is portrayed as a price that must be paid for economic growth

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-why-the-technological-system-will-destroy-itself

Attached: 1539692982427.jpg (750x780, 81K)

do you want another analogy? let's say you have a man who has severe schizophrenia. you can give him a lobotomy. now he no longer suffers from the same terrors as before (perhaps because he loses the capacity to understand them) but he also loses 25 percent of his mental and/or physical abilities. you technically solve the problem but whether or not it's the best solution is debatable

yeah either that or you simply realize that "schizophrenia" is literally nothing

>Yet, despite the importance of a reliable diagnosis, there is still no consensus about who is mentally ill, or what a “disease” like schizophrenia is or isn’t. Nancy Andreasen, the editor of the American Journal of Psychiatry, the official journal of the APA, confessed in 1998 that, “Someday in the twenty-first century, after the human genome and the human brain have been mapped, someone may need to organize a reverse Marshall Plan so that the Europeans can save American science by helping us figure out who really has schizophrenia or what schizophrenia is.” For every psychiatrist ready to assure the public that schizophrenia really exists and needs to be treated before behavior becomes violent, there are others who entirely reject this. Allen Frances, the editor of the DSM-IV, told writer Gary Greenberg that “There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.” Given the frequency with which one hears politicians and the disaster-profiteers in the media comment on the mental illness crisis apparently sweeping across America, it is somewhat shocking to hear the man who edited the book on how to diagnose these illnesses tell us that “These concepts are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the boundaries.” Perhaps it would shock many to learn that the “diseases” listed there are not chosen because they objectively exist and were discovered through scientific means, but because a member of the APA suggested them, they were discussed, and eventually voted on for inclusion or exclusion. Homosexuality was ousted from the DSM by a vote, not because they suddenly “realized” it wasn’t a disease.

belliresearchinstitute.com/portfolio/schizo-genesis-mad-apocalypse-the-story-of-the-psycho-bellum-primer-one/

? TK wants to destroy industrial society and get rid of technology, so he puts forth the proposition that we must destroy industrial society to destroy industrial society and get rid of technology. How is this not the best solution for his goals? Truth is the people running circles around TK's works are just scared of their own demise in a world without tech. Understandable.

The genius in TK writings is that it is so dumb, clear and simple that no argument can be formulated against. People forget that genius iq math man spent 18 years writing a 50 page manifesto, then another 20 years in jail to publish two small books. It's going to be hard to find flaws.

Throughout the 20th century, “. . . the referents of schizophrenia gradually changed until the diagnosis came to be applied to a population who bore only a slight, and possibly superficial, resemblance to Kraepelin’s.” By the end of the 20th century, schizophrenia was associated with hallucination, delusions, and bizarre thoughts. With such a broad diagnostic territory, schizophrenia became the tool of choice for psychiatrists diagnosing social disorders. Why is speaking to God in a cathedral considered “prayer,” while speaking to a friend who passed away a “hallucination?” Why is believing you live in the “greatest country in the world” and showing reverence to a piece of cloth considered “patriotic,” while believing you are or could be a spy “delusional?” How is believing immigrants are coming over the borders in waves a “healthy fear,” while believing the FBI is spying on you “paranoid?” Simple. One adheres to an acceptable norm and the other does not. If we were to stick to only material referents to produce meaning, then we would have to abandon language. The relations we imagine between things are imaginary and do not materially exist. Delusion and psychosis are common parts —indeed, necessary parts— of the human experience and could be shared and discussed were it not for the shame implicit in “schizophrenia” or any other psychiatric diagnosis.

One of the most dramatic examples of the diagnostic fluidity of schizophrenia happened between 1940 and 1960 and was examined by Jonathan Metzl in his book The Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease. In the early 20th century, schizophrenia was considered a benign disease that mostly affected white women who were not adequately performing the expectations associated with being a wife or daughter. It was largely perceived to be a disease of docility and inaction. The wife was melancholic and failing to perform her womanly chores. Jonika Upton was diagnosed as schizophrenic. Some of her “symptoms” included carrying a Proust book around and running away with a boyfriend.

This changed in the 1960s during the Black Power movement when schizophrenia suddenly became associated with the fears of white civil society about black protest. The DSM-II added “hostility” and “aggression” as new criteria for diagnosing schizophrenia; advertisements for anti-psychotics began portraying aggressive black men; and asylums began admitting black men for schizophrenia about five times more often than white patients. Malcolm X and Robert F. Williams were both diagnosed as schizophrenic by the FBI.

the fact that the mind is so poorly understood that we can't properly define disorders doesn't mean that things like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are just memes. Sure we don't get what they are and how they work but the people who really suffer from these things don't function at all in society. The guy raving to himself on the sidewalk is legitimately insane, it's not some social construct.

He was mentally ill but cognitively salient. A brilliant psychopath without a hint of humanity. In a touch of cosmic irony he was all mechanism inside, a remorseless parallel and personification of the technosocial systematization he loathed.

oh please, you know who raved at the sidewalk and didn't function at all in society? Jesus Christ. now lets burn all churches and build concentration camps for all Christians, after all, those people are "schizophrenic", right?

just read the piece, kid, or better yet listen to the podcast.. its a real eye opener, buddy.

soundcloud.com/underbelli/sets/the-underbelli-schizo-genesis-mad-apocalypse

>How is this not the best solution for his goals?
the reason he wants to get rid of technology is because he believes humans were MEANT to live in a non-technological world.

who can say how humanity was meant to live? human brains aren't chimpanzee brains. we are the only animals with known sentience/consciousness/self-awareness of existence, whatever you want to call it.

Christ didn't babble incoherently while clutching his arms and spasming. Have you seriously never seen an insane person before?

HE was an schizo, no doubt, but his manifesto is becoming more relevant as time passes.

And that capacity is belittled by techno-capital. Machines have humans change for them, man is at the mercy of progress.Andrew Yang is the only personality addressing these issues, albeit in a shallow economic lens.

gee, i wander why...

youtube.com/watch?v=0oJqJkfTdAg

i dont know.. is chatting with some asshole on the other side of the glob while real flesh and blood people are all around you is sane or not? is hunting for rabbits in the woods instead of working for Uber like a pinball ball is more or less sane? beats me..

Napoleon just send his soldiers in the front line

>His print is that of a child's
>that of a child's
>that which belongs to that which belongs to a child
There is no way anybody can take a man writing like that seriously.

>technonindustrial system will violate human decency and the principles of fairness
How?

how perfectly superficial. what drove him was deep, pure emotion.

Do you know how grammar works? That was pitiful.

do you?
his print may be that of a child. but you say his print is that of a child's. a child's what exactly? double possessive makes no sense here. i can't make it any clearer than that.
>B-BUT ITS IDIOMATIC
so what, it still makes no sense.

*deep, pure autism

>is chatting with some asshole on the other side of the glob while real flesh and blood people are all around you is sane or not?
I don't see why it wouldn't be sane

Jesus christ you guys are pathetic.
> He was mentally ill
Read this article, everyone that has interacted with him from his previous teachers to his psychologists have testified to his sanity. He was framed as mentally ill as an obvious attempt to direct attention away from his arguments and discredit them, he even predicted this before his trial in several letters. theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/06/harvard-and-the-making-of-the-unabomber/378239/
> B..but he was violent
Violence happens all the time and is a necessary tool to maintain or create any state of affairs that faces real resistance. The question is never whether to use violance or not, it is whether the cause for using violence is justified or not (current democratic governments use violence against "terrorists" and "dictatorships" all the time in the name of freedom, justice and human rights).
>B..but destroying all tech is too radical.
Read the books. Ted categorized technology into two parts, small and large scale. Small scale tech is fine as it is almost an inevitablity in every commnuity, large scale tech that relies on big organizations on the other hand is a net negative on the individual, as it constantly interferes with his freedom and dignity. Ted argues then that the elimination of large scall technology is a radical form of change, one which cannot be attained through "reform" or "debate", but only revolutionary action.

>Jesus christ you guys are pathetic.
You're the guy worshipping a crazed autist

> Ignores all the arguments but replies to the insult instead.
Thanks for proving my point.

Okay retard

>NO NO NO NO NO WE SAID HES INSANE YOURE NOT ALLOWED TO LISTEN TO HIS ARGUMENTS NOOOO DADDY STATE SAID TO IGNORE HIM

Attached: nooo.jpg (199x253, 9K)

that's you whole "argument" - he was "mad". and you never ask what is "madness" you just label him something you dont even understand so you can stay in you comfort zone and sleep your whole life. this is the epitome of intellectual laziness and cowardice: never acknowledge difference and strangeness, just ignore it and stay where you are, and where is this place that you (and this whole society) is? is that a good place or a hellhole?

He's pretty clearly not all there lmao.

>but only revolutionary action
American-tier opinion. If you do the revolution in one country, you'll be crushed by country that keeps it's tech. We are stuck with tech due to darwinian pressures.

>What's the final verdict on Ted
product of psychosis
just a jihadi terrorist by any other name
the beliefs may change but the actions are the same

He was lonely and autistic, the kind that makes you really hate loud noises like stallman. That does not justify sending mail bombs even if it went untreated

Psychology is a pseudo science. All of you religious tards are also mentally ill for believing in sky daddy. Sorry bucko.

I can't help but smirk when I see some of you use his "leftists are oversocialized" argument. I've seen it often this year.

>He's pretty clearly not all there lmao.

Attached: notallthere.png (621x702, 56K)

The psychology shit is bunk, but his assessment of technology distorts normal human lives is obviously correct.

actually if a major economic-industrial country "falls" there is a big probability that other will fallow. just think about how the global economy is interwoven, think what will be of Chinese manufacturing if the US will implode economically and technologically.

>At the end of June 2006 in the State of Oaxaca, the occupations of city halls multiply, and insurgents occupy public buildings. In certain communes, mayors are kicked out, official vehicles are requisitioned. A month later, access is cut off to certain hotels and tourist compounds. Mexico’s Minister of Tourism speaks of a disaster “comparable to hurricane Wilma.” A few years earlier, blockades had become the main form of action of the revolt in Argentina, with different local groups helping each other by blocking this or that major road, and continually threatening, through their joint action, to paralyze the entire country if their demands were not met. For years such threats have been a powerful lever for railway workers, truck drivers, and electrical and gas supply workers. The movement against the CPE in France did not hesitate to block train stations, ring roads, factories, highways, supermarkets and even airports. In Rennes, only three hundred people were needed to shut down the main access road to the town for hours and cause a 40-kilometer long traffic jam.

>Jam everything — this will be the first reflex of all those who rebel against the present order. In a delocalized economy where companies function according to “just-in-time” production, where value derives from connectedness to the network, where the highways are links in the chain of dematerialized production which moves from subcontractor to subcontractor and from there to another factory for assembly, to block circulation is to block production as well.

>But a blockade is only as effective as the insurgents’ capacity to supply themselves and to communicate, as effective as the self-organization of the different communes. How will we feed ourselves once everything is paralyzed? Looting stores, as in Argentina, has its limits; as large as the temples of consumption are, they are not bottomless pantries. Acquiring the skills to provide, over time, for one’s own basic subsistence implies appropriating the necessary means of its production. And in this regard, it seems pointless to wait any longer. Letting two percent of the population produce the food of all the others — the situation today — is both a historical and a strategic anomaly.

>uhhh shit, what happened to all the LSD?

Attached: thomas-pynchon.jpg (350x350, 54K)

>appeal to normalcy
looks like someone failed logic 101

Yup

Appeal to nature fallacy

Kinda fucked up that China locked itself into low wage servitude for the first world but hey

I cannot for the life of me understand the anprim subreddit. They're pro trans acceptance and feminism yet are all for the primitive life.Ted was right on there being a paradox in some anprim circles. His actions were obviously inhumane and he could have used his genius somewhere else, maybe as an underground writer.

the biggest problem is that in order for random bombs being a LEGITIMATE measure to reach his goal, it would have to be SUITABLE one. however there was never a possible world in which random mail bombs led to the collapse of 'industrial society', or even its measurable impairment. for the ends to justify the means, the means have to be suitable to bring about the ends in the first place.

I absoloutely agree.
Ted adresses this concern specifically, his argument being basically what you stated, that if one major country was to stop using large scale tech it would fall behind so much finanically and othwerwise that even its own population will demand its return to technology, Ted notes because of this that a revolution has to be global in order to have a chance of succeeding, something i myself am very sceptical about. Imo the technologization of society is an irreversible trend.

Ted is a tranny himself...

Military tends to be largely independent. Besides the initial shock will be easily replaced by the fact competition was removed. Thermodynamics will always eventually trump the kinetics.

He didnt send bombs to start the "revolution". He used them as blackmail to get his works published.

>it may survive or it may collapse

youtube.com/watch?v=50tikJgYshk

youtube.com/watch?v=08GDQCiU8uU

Attached: 12-Secrets-Theyre-Still-Not-Telling-You-About-911-6-760x506.jpg (760x506, 36K)

ah i see. i just watched the first episode of that terrible netflix show and that was the impression i got. however in that case, that is an even worse justification.

>“This business shows that we are not dealing with young people making social demands, but with individuals who are declaring war on the Republic,” noted a lucid cop about recent clashes. The push to liberate territory from police occupation is already underway, and can count on the endless reserves of resentment that the forces of order have marshaled against it. Even the “social movements” are gradually being seduced by the riots, just like the festive crowds in Rennes who fought the cops every Thursday night in 2005, or those in Barcelona who destroyed a shopping district during a botellion. The movement against the CPE witnessed the recurrent return of the Molotov cocktail. But on this front certain banlieues remain unsurpassed. Specifically, when it comes to the technique they’ve been perfecting for some time now: the surprise attack. Like the one on October 13, 2006 in Epinay. A private-security team headed out after getting a report of something stolen from a car. When they arrived, one of the security guards “found himself blocked by two vehicles parked diagonally across the street and by more than thirty people carrying metal bars and pistols who threw stones at the vehicle and used tear gas against the police officers.” On a smaller scale, think of all the local police stations attacked in the night: broken windows, burnt-out cop cars.

>One of the results of these recent movements is the understanding that henceforth a real demonstration has to be “wild,” not declared in advance to the police. Having the choice of terrain, we can, like the Black Bloc of Genoa in 2001, bypass the red zones and avoid direct confrontation. By choosing our own trajectory, we can lead the cops, including unionist and pacifist ones, rather than being herded by them. In Genoa we saw a thousand determined people push back entire buses full of carabinieri, then set their vehicles on fire. The important thing is not to be better armed but to take the initiative. Courage is nothing, confidence in your own courage is everything. Having the initiative helps.

>Everything points, nonetheless, toward a conception of direct confrontations as that which pins down opposing forces, buying us time and allowing us to attack elsewhere — even nearby. The fact that we cannot prevent a confrontation from occurring doesn’t prevent us from making it into a simple diversion. Even more than to actions, we must commit ourselves to their coordination. Harassing the police means that by forcing them to be everywhere they can no longer be effective anywhere.

youtube.com/watch?v=y2bg1rXsl1g

Attached: 1532363150000.jpg (800x800, 292K)

like the million of ted threads that have been posted on here since 2015, quite accurate diagnosis but his solutions are laughable.

If you've read any Mark Fisher or Žižek it's almost impossible to dismantle tech/kapital complex in modern society. The best you can do is riot for yangbux and hope some massive disaster shoop da whoops china.

Attached: 1551641149404.png (1859x1070, 513K)

>If you've read any Mark Fisher or Žižek it's almost impossible to dismantle tech/kapital complex in modern society

it not complicated at all. in fact, it might be just around the corner

podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/it-could-happen-here/id1449762156

>Žižek

Oof and yikes!

Attached: 02f.jpg (655x527, 59K)

Greta Thunberg already said that the droning of the Saudi oil refinement plant was a "thoughtful and intelligent action to be considered"

>Imo the technologization of society is an irreversible trend.

People will always tend to go the easy route, especially the route that aids in our survival. His argument seems to be a appeals to nature essay. If we better off living primitively then why are rural populations on the decline because of migration to metropolitan cities? Only autists like Ted could live that lifestyle and I mean that in a positive way.

>why are rural populations on the decline because of migration to metropolitan cities

you do realize that the first migration out of the countryside and into the city was due to the enclosure act in England right? what you thought that people just lined up to factories ones those thing poped up? nuh my man, they had to be fucking shoved like cattle into them

youtube.com/watch?v=kL78Ujnz35A

i had to google who that is because im old but lol

Attached: ted yes.jpg (800x600, 51K)

Not denying what you just said, but I'm talking rural areas today because of lower living conditions.

im not sure im buying into that...the people migrating in "cities" dont experience a better "living conditions", first of they dont really migrate into cities but to urban slums without any infrastructure, they may have smartphones but not toilets or running water. and considering automation they dont have much of a prospect of a jobs either. they just rot at the outskirts of cities waiting to explode. and they migrate there for a number of reasons, one is being the importation of the food that they produced, other reasons being soil depletion. it might come as a shock but native Americans never swarmed to the "benefits" of civilization.

youtube.com/watch?v=tVUI9U4WQ6E

listen to this globo-cop sometime, he knows whats up

youtube.com/watch?v=_AD4c2R1i1w

Why are you using a computer and Yea Forums if you think tech is bad. You are a hypocrite

This dude is devoid of religion.

well, he's not christian that's for sure but one cant say hes devoid of spirituality

>the end of the interview, Kaczynski related a poignant story about the close relationship he had developed with snowshoe rabbit.

>"This is kind of personal," he begins by saying, and I ask if he wants me to turn off the tape. He says "no, I can tell you about it. While I was living in the woods I sort of invented some gods for myself" and he laughs. "Not that I believed in these things intellectually, but they were ideas that sort of corresponded with some of the feelings I had. I think the first one I invented was Grandfather Rabbit. You know the snowshoe rabbits were my main source of meat during the winters. I had spent a lot of time learning what they do and following their tracks all around before I could get close enough to shoot them. Sometimes you would track a rabbit around and around and then the tracks disappear. You can't figure out where that rabbit went and lose the trail. I invented a myth for myself, that this was the Grandfather Rabbit, the grandfather who was responsible for the existence of all other rabbits. He was able to disappear, that is why you couldn't catch him and why you would never see him... Every time I shot a snowshoe rabbit, I would always say 'thank you Grandfather Rabbit.' After a while I acquired an urge to draw snowshoe rabbits. I sort of got involved with them to the extent that they would occupy a great deal of my thought. I actually did have a wooden object that, among other things, I carved a snowshoe rabbit in. I planned to do a better one, just for the snowshoe rabbits, but I never did get it done.

primitivism.com/kaczynski

Just another Neo-Christian shepherd rounding up his flock of fools with flowery words and lies.

a pseud who never heard of or never understood historical materialism

read Foucault.
mental illneses are literally aggregates of symptoms. it's literally just a standarization of "abnormality" in order to keep a check on minds who resist being a wagey

>be Ted
>sort of eloquently point out some of the ills of modernity that everyone has already written about extensively
>point out how technology is present in them and how the specific forms of it today aid the process
>conclude that technology itself is not only the cause of these illneses instead of a symptom, and even more, that this is part of the inherent inner workings of technology
>when trying to back up your claim to extend past modernity, simply refer to some fictional primitive "free" man who had total control over its mind and body and hope noone calls you out on it.

why does every conversation about ted always ignore his part in being under government brainwashing experiments?

Attached: harolds headache.jpg (450x320, 45K)

Guilty as fuck, but right about everything.

why do you make wild claims before reading the thread? somebody posted a letter from Kaczynski where he states that the experiment’s intensity was exaggerated

He mentioned positive aspects of technology but also said that they were impossible to separate from the overwhelmingly negative aspects of technology. Also, he wasn't trans.

What I don't understand is how anyone could read his manifesto and assume he has schizophrenia based off of that. There's nothing schizo about him.

they dont believe it themselves, they say that to distance themselves from him. or they say he was manipulated all along by the "MK Ultra" bullshit as a way to deny his agency, becouse they themselves have no agency they resent the idea that somebody out there has something that they dont. bad faith, that's all

These sorts of responses are the reason why Ted isn't taken seriously

Ted didn't write that post, user.

I'm aware. You talk to any of his fans and invariably they spew out some retarded pro-murder philosophy talking points. Makes it difficult to see his writings as having value

I've spoken to a lot of people who admire him and the vast majority say they thought his murders were not just morally wrong but ineffective. Of course you're going to get edginess here, but it's hardly representative.

And even if all his "fans" were edgy morons it doesn't make any of his ideas inherently wrong or without value.

murder did nothing wrong

Attached: mao-zedong-quote-lbn2n2u.jpg (1200x630, 57K)

>shamelessly shilling your book to a man in prison

Is it misrepresentative? Don't get me wrong, I've read all his shit and see the value. Hell, he's the reason why Ellul is taught at so many Ivy league schools, but the ethos of Ted is ties his ideas to his anti-human cynicism and that undercuts the whole argument, from a persuasion standpoint. It bugs me to see that, is all

you got it backwardness, both are kazynski, the unabomber was shilling HIS book to the kazynski-journalist.

i read the book, its worth shilling

Attached: antitech.jpg (333x499, 16K)

>anti-human cynicism
That's not true at all, in fact it is the opposite and one of the bigger criticisms against him, that he's too optimistic about people and what they are willing/able to accomplish. Remember, he thinks people can come together to overthrow the technological system in a massive, worldwide revolution under the understanding that it's all for their own best interests. That doesn't strike me as anti-human or cynical.

And yes, it is misrepresentative to say all his fans (a diverse group of people to start with) all support his murders.

there's nothing anti human about defending your way of life or seeking revenge. i never understood the whole "murder" thing. im not being an edgelord or anything here. where the native Americans "murderers" for defending their way of life? the guy lived in the woods and they were cutting the shit down. he wouldn't have done shit if that wasn't happening. its not even "murder", its just fucking war that's all. anybody has the god given right to defend his way of life.

I think you're going a bit too far. He only thinks a few hardened extremists will be able to overthrow tech, so that's who he writes for. That's why he wrote all that stuff about how all revolutionary moments collapse and become corrupt invariably. He's fairly realistic when it comes to organizing and it's obstacles. I don't know how you could interpret that as optimism. Also really what I'm trying to get at is that his fans are mostly shame fueled cynics and pathological extremists. And that's a bad look.

>There's nothing antihuman......about seeking revenge
Can't you see the pathological problem in that sentence? Regardless of the rationale, that's how anti-human death drive reasoning slips in

have you read his book?how can you call him extremist? he's perfectly reasonable: should we or should we not have complex life forms on planet earth? K says yes. that's not extreme, that's just saying yes to life is what it is. you know what's extreme? killing life on planet earth and then dying yourself.

>If we are placed in a period of history and in a society in which necessity becomes ever more exacting, then nothing is truly continuous or durable. Our entire civilization is ephemeral. When one glorifies increased consumption, one must discard machine-made objects in the course of rapid usage. We no longer repair things: we throw them away. Plastics, nylons, are made to be new for an infinitesimal period of time and, as they cost nothing, are destroyed as soon as the gloss of newness is gone. Houses are constructed for the duration of their mortgage; automobiles must be replaced every year. And in the world of art we no longer build cathedrals, but we make moving pictures, which—though real works of art in which man has fully committed himself and expressed his most profound message—are forgotten after a few weeks and disappear into movie libraries where only a few connoisseurs can find them again. We bring all our care, all our intelligence to bear on the production of a TV broadcast that will last only twenty minutes and survive only in the spectator's fleeting memory. This is one of the most distressing aspects of contemporary man. Treasures of ingenuity, immense amounts of work, the passions of men believing in what they are doing, end in ephemeral objects—in all spheres of activity—of which nothing will remain. Today's newspaper ef- faces yesterday's ( it does not provide continuity in the mind of the reader), just as a new technique blots out an older one. History is accelerating while at the same time all that could make our presence endure scatters like ashes. Man, who has always worked to leave behind some eternal work that would mark his passage on earth, is driven by a strange renunciation and works for the most futile and volatile ends. And our new huge dams, these cathedrals of modern times? We know that they are built to last for centuries, but the production of electricity by new processes will make them useless, and they will remain incomprehensible, crumbling monuments in stone. We will not leave a single straight furrow behind us.

Yeah his discussing how revolutionary movements fall apart is realistic, but that's not the same thing as being cynical. Again, he still thinks a world wide revolution against the technological system is possible. That's pretty idealistic and again, the opposite of cynical or anti-humanist. Many of his arguments against technology are based on the idea that tech hurts people and their inherent humanity (including, though not his phrasing, what could be called their "god given rights") which strikes me as pretty pro-humanity rather than against.

It seems like you're just railing against (your perceived notion of) his fans rather than what he's really about.

look im not a humanist. do you understand that every concept must have an outside to it in order for it to have meaning? if you talk about Human you must exclude some outside the Human for the Human to have sense. just like the racial category of White needs the non-white (Black) to cohere so it is with the Human.

>man himself is exalted, and paradoxical though it may seem to be, this means the crushing of man. Man's enslavement is the reverse side of the glory, value, and importance that are ascribed to him. The more a society magnifies human greatness, the more one will see men alienated, enslaved, imprisoned, and tortured, in it. Humanism prepares the ground for the anti-human. We do not say that this is an intellectual paradox. All one need do is read history. Men have never been so oppressed as in societies which set man at the pinnacle of values and exalt his greatness or make him the measure of all things.

>anti-human death drive reasoning
It should be noted that as compared to other terrorists (assuming you want to label Kaczynski that, some disagree but I think it fits) he chose very specific targets. If he had bombed some random building, let's say, then I'd agree that there was an element of "anti-human death drive" but he didn't. The closest he got was bombing an airplane because he claims he thought it would be full of businessmen (stupid, but to be fair he was an autist) and he later apologized for that and apologized for hurting a secretary who opened one of his bombs. He also tried to make his bombs powerful enough to be an instant death and was pleased when he read that they had killed his targets instantly rather than slowly.

This isn't really fully defending him since he did gloat about hurting some people but I still think that overall it's an oversimplification of how he went about his crimes.

That's exactly what I'm railing against. His ideas are pretty intellectually rigorous, I know that, but once he starts spreading his ideas devolve into a pathology, and a particularly unhealthy one. I see his views morphed into a deep cynicism, even though they aren't that originally. Yes it's only my perception but it's not the sort of observation which can be proven

You are conflating Ted with the user I was speaking to

this doesn't look like the other letters Ted sent from prison, I think its a fake

How? The handwriting and signature looks like his and it reads like one of his letters.

I miswrote. I meant his fans distort his ideas. His ideas are pretty consistent. I left a word out

Just a few years after Vattel, Napoleon called Europe a “province” of the world and declared that, “When we battle, we engage in nothing more than civil war.” Kant, the figurehead of secular cosmopolitanism, asked in an essay whether “perpetual peace” might be achieved by a universal unifying humanism. It seems he answered his own question by calling his essay “Toward Perpetual Peace,” a name which he took from an ironic tavern sign depicting a graveyard. By the 20th century, these cosmopolitan concepts would become so grand and universal that Kennedy could call the Cold War a “global civil war that has divided mankind,” and the director of UNESCO could say on United Nations Day in 1949 that “all wars are civil wars: all battles are battles between citizens, nay more, between brothers.” It’s interesting to note that the first person to use “cosmopolitan” was Diogenes, the Cynic. When citizens confronted him and told him that his behavior and words — which included stripping naked and insulting the famous men of the day in public — were disturbing the other citizens, his answer was that he was a cosmopolitan. The association of that word with notions of “universal peace” and “egalitarianism” would have been completely foreign to Diogenes. Instead, he meant “I don’t have to follow your laws, for I am only a citizen of the universe, and not of your city.” Cosmopolitan was an insult to the notion of civility, not its universalization.

The paradox of increasing universalism is that the outbreak of conflict, when it does occur, appears more and more like the outbreak of an irrationality or a sickness. The horror of all this is that the Good Pacifist West, or the Enlightened Leadership, or the Rational Democrats then appear as surgeons removing infected parts of the body, as a purifier of all that causes breakdown and disease. When being a “citizen” coincides with being human in general, irreconcilable differences between people can only appear as a disease to be purged from civil society. The same Vattel who looked ahead to the “profound peace” that “would prevail all over the earth” made it clear that “unjust plunderers […] are monsters, unworthy of the name of men. They should be regarded as enemies of the human species […] Other nations are justified in uniting together as a body with the object of punishing, and even of exterminating, such savage peoples.” This is clear in the “global war on terror,” which is nothing other than a global civil war in which internal breakdown is reconstituted as fanaticism and blind hatred from a “sick” part of world society.

you mean the non-cursive style?

you mean the letter that had to go through his lawyer first?

Attached: harolds stare of death.jpg (1858x1702, 508K)

>netflix show
fuck (((they))) have already begun subverting his message

because there were never enough of them to swarm?

>neutral evil
>CHAOTIC force for GOOD
I mean I know it's Yea Forums but you can reread what you type.