Context :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

Dude was a genius mathematician, he quit everything to live in a forest cabin while learning survival skills and living in tune with nature, he snapped when he saw one of his favorite nature spots being replaced by a road (according to wikipedia) and decided to fight the system.

"The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race." He writes that technology has had a destabilizing effect on society, has made life unfulfilling, and has caused widespread psychological suffering. He predicts that further technological advances will lead to extensive human genetic engineering and that human beings will be adjusted to meet the needs of the social systems, rather than vice versa.

Kaczynski argues that the erosion of human freedom is a natural product of an industrial society because"the system has to regulate human behavior closely in order to function", and that reform of the system is impossible as drastic changes to it would not be implemented because of their disruption of the system.[82] He states that the system has not yet fully achieved control over all human behavior and is in the midst of a struggle to gain that control. Kaczynski predicts that the system will break down if it cannot achieve significant control, and that it is likely this issue will be decided within the next 40 to 100 years.[82] He states that the task of those who oppose industrial society is to promote stress within and upon the society and to propagate anti-technology ideology, one that offers the "counter-ideal" of nature. Kaczynski goes on to say that a revolution will only be possible when industrial society is sufficiently unstable

He also discusses leftisms and conservatisms, which he critisizes.

Cliffs : read the second big paragraph only.

In on FBI thread

Ted Kaczynski
David Icke
Alex Jones


Everyone used to say they were crazy. Now look at the world. They were ahead of their time. They talked more truth than what you are spoon fed from the media and big tech.

He actually identified the current problems with society as well as the direction that society was going quite accurately. He was unfortunately correct about the trend to AI, automation, class systems, big tech, and government overreach.

I disagree with him that anarchy and the entire destruction of the current system is the only way out. He may be proven to be right in that too…But I hope not.

I think his solution was to reduce 2 things : the control of the state and its power and the use of technology by going to a primitive way of life, the way I see it is small communities of people living in nature while cooperating to survive / thrive.

He had a mental breakdown while waiting in a Doctor's office to receive gender reassignment surgery.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chi...story,amp.html

LOL

It all changed in 2012

David icke is banned from social media because he exposed the elite 20-30 years ago, his book was a metaphor of the nwo. He was exposing too much stuff recently in interviews so they just completely removed him.

he was the best man

His manifesto is on youtube. His analysis of leftism is one of the best I've heard.

Don't agree with him about a lot things, but it's definitely interesting.

Edit:

op is ted K just bragging from his cell

Based.

Disagree. I found his thesis to be akin to Marxist dialectics of the 19th century in that it removes all agency and autonomy from human actors and assumes that vast impersonal forces determine history, rather than great men.

Technology is no more responsible for man’s fallen state than automatic weapons. Both enable that preternatural imperfection to reach formerly unfathomable heights, but they are not the cause. They are simply the vehicle for its expression.

If Theodore’s hypothesis (as expressed in his manifesto) were correct, and when exposed to the “truth” hidden by the “oligarchs” man would naturally revolt against his technocratic overlords, then we would have never reached the levels of dystopia in which we currently find ourselves.

He was an interesting man who ought to be studied and reviled rather than only reviled, but he was not brilliant outside of his specific area of expertise srs.

Have you read the manifesto in full?

I agree with you in parts of it, but there's huge parts where he's so spot on it's kind of scary. He definitely at least has some point even if it's not 100% accurate. I'd say he's a little more dramatic than the reality, but you have to remember he was also writing and thinking about this without the hindsight we have now, in the 70's 80's and 90's when he was forming his ideas, a lot of the ideas you may disagree with regarding technology probably seemed a lot more plausible back then, and the historical context is important here. But even so, as we become more tightly coupled with technology, we slowly start to give up more and more freedoms and agency, and society as a whole becomes more autonomous IMO, I don't believe this is the way ithasto be, but i think it's the natural momentum of incremental technological advances unless our eyes are open to it and we are pro-active about how technology is used. This doesn't mean on an individual level it happens to everyone, but I think at a societal level [i.e looking at entire populations, and their behavior and how it correlates with technology among different generations] his predictions are not a million miles away from the reality

And I think he was pretty damn brilliant outside of just math, he was clearly well read on philosophy even if he has differing philosophical views to say you and I. The problem is that he makes some really illuminating points, but has some swathes of erratic thinking mixed in which can sometimes make it difficult to fully get on board with what he's saying even if there's a lot of truth to it. His critique of leftism for example is outside his area of study, and while it's quite harsh it is a pretty decent analysis of the psychology of the (extreme) left IMO.

The man had a 170 IQ, I think people don't fully grasp how insane and what an absurd outlier he is... he's basically a different species compared to most humans, the mans mind was brilliant even if he was clearly deeply damaged.

The rumored LSD mind breaking drug trials he was subject to in his younger years (if true, which it seems they may be) probably didn't help with his mental state though.

more lies from the "chosen". its no wonder people dont believe the media any more with their half truths being amplified by retards such as yourself. its obv the guy had issues but he wasnt "waiting for tranny surgery". so why lie about it?

Bro he wrote out exactly what the result of a smart phone would be without even knowing what one is.

It ended up going the same route of slave to the technology. We feel pressured to answer work emails within several hours, constant connectivity has become the expected norm. Less time for “self” etc..

Forgive the poverty response to your very well thought out post, I am mobile.

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said and I have to admit I’ve never been able to make it through any of his works cover to cover.

His central thesis is that there is a converse relationship between technology and individual liberty— can we agree on that?

How does his thesis explain VPNs, virtual machines, segregated information spaces, etc.?

He makes a compelling case for being skeptical of technology, but his goal is to refute the idea of technology altogether. That is completely different.

My grandfather told me that my Walkman would one day be combined with my telephone. He said that in the 90s.

Here check this out, one day all of your government documents and medical records will be available via personal device too.

It’s not that hard to read trends and see where they are going. Plenty of futurists were predicting the kinds of innovations we take for granted in 2021 way back in the 50s and 60s.

The point is the social and human response to it which has come about as well.

Unabomber was a retard. Seriously.

Technology allows the evil people in the government to do what it is they want to do and fukk with people. His proposed solution was to remove the technology instead of the evil people. It's not different from gun grabber logic, and if you think it is then you just appreciate the aesthetic appeal of sending mail bombs to journalists (not that I blame you).

Agree. Those were prescient predictions.

Doesn’t make everything else correct too though.

He obviously came to the wrong conclusions. But he outlined the right problem.

We could all just be fishing and hunting and foraging. Building dope shelters and having holidays and fukking all the time.

Food, shelter, party, fuk, travel to new spot repeat. Sure there’s gonna be some disease and limbs lost and brutal daily struggles between life and death. But that’s real living boyos, you learn to appreciate chit.

Instead we keep billions of stupid fat fuks alive with our advanced medicine.

Even then large portions of humanity live in places like Afghanistan were they get drone bombed at school or raped by uncle rambjeeteraj when parents are in the other room. Or you could be a starving Yemen kid etc.. for every “perfect life” technology has created there’s a mirrored dystopian future nightmare story somewhere.

But who was human progress.

We can’t all be farmers forever Thomas Jefferson.

Yeah we can agree that's what his central thesis is, and in reality mine and your views are probably not miles apart.

He doesn't really explain VPN's and virtual machines etc, but i'm not sure one can expect him to. Historical trajectory is messy and not linear and there will obviously be some blowback to the loss of freedoms such as VPN's and what not, but i don't think these disprove what he says, rather they are attempts to fight the freedom that has been lost through technology, or at least mitigate it. I think what's important is, if you step back and look at society and technology as a whole, there is a strong correlation between loss of liberty, and technological advancement. As we know, correlation and causation aren't always the same thing, but i think in this case it's at least a contributing factor to loss of freedoms, and also a loss of values.

The area I disagree with him and what i believe to be the huge flaw in his philosophy, is his claim therehas to be a correlation between loss of freedom and technology. I think if we're not mindful of it, it's the natural trajectory and i think part of that is because apart from a few large 'phase transition' (i.e industrial revolution) type events, technology is an incremental process and incremental changes like this have the tendency to have their negative effects go unnoticed until it reaches a critical point. I don't think we need to throw away technology and all go live in a cabin, i simply think that as a society we can retain our liberty and freedom if we are more mindful of technological advancements, whereas i feel his manifesto basically claims the link between technology and loss of liberty is inevitable and unavoidable (and i think this is where you disagree with him too, but feel free to correct me if i'm wrong). The current events with covid and what not may be such one such event that makes huge populations of people rethink their relationship with technology, or it could go the total opposite way where people become completely reliant on technology. I think we are at a critical point in history that will have a huge influence on where we ultimately end up.

tldr; I do think his point is valuable, because if we are not mindful of technology and how it affects our lives, then society as he has predicted may well end up becoming similar to our reality (and i think we're seeing some implications of this trend w/ how hooked so many people are to social media etc). However, i don't think it's an inevitability and i think it's possible for technology to move forward and thus human progress, and us to maintain our liberty and freedoms if we are more mindful about technological advances and how we use said technology. The real issue is largely 'the 1%', nobody with as much influence and control as some people have in the world should be able to operate without transparency. Basically I think his prediction is definitely a possible future with technology, but it's not the only possible future and it mislabels technology as the only variable when it's a multi-variate issue.

I'll admit though i haven't thought very deeply about this so it's possible there's flaws in my argument, these are my thoughts from skim reading through his manifesto once.

Free Ted Kaczynski


dead srs

Your tears are delicious. It's compiled in the psychiatric report, but that's just a lie right? They must have known low IQ retards would look up to a mentally ill incel with a high IQ.http://content.time.com/time/magazin...2213-3,00.html

Brutal.

Not that crazy considering he's smarter than everyone.

People will kill eachother if it means they get to climb the social hierarchy so his conclusions don't surprise me one bit. I also think he's right.

His anarcho naturalist views are very similar to mine, we both have 170 IQ scores too. I haven't indulged into terrorism tho (yet)