Is the Unabomber Manifesto worth reading or is it crazy gibberish like it's made out to be...

Is the Unabomber Manifesto worth reading or is it crazy gibberish like it's made out to be. Seem like not many people have read it

Attached: CzolgoszCunning.png (338x289, 104K)

Other urls found in this thread:

editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Lit has not for sure

Attached: charles.png (898x972, 745K)

It is a manifesto like all manifestos are. It is not bedtime story reading or for sharing with girls. But it does get read. Many worldviews are today under its influence. Apparently you are wrong about how many peoole read it. The popularity of the work, especially within the young political right, could become noticable after reading the work.

Attached: 1516920788807.jpg (2400x1800, 572K)

So i think you are telling me that it's worth reading. What are his main points?

Attached: 14991809_1253544324708609_2748319302750872330_n.jpg (960x600, 123K)

>especially within the young political right

school shooters?

i read it a long time ago. it's worth reading for sure. only like 35k words so you could probably read it in under 4 hours.

Bazinga

>liberals are pussies
>technology will destroy us

By the way his original title is The Industrial Society and it's Future.

>it's
Dropped

I'm still waiting for a well thought-out synopsis by someone who has actually read it.

That's not an opinionated, shitty summary at all.

Not gonna spoon-feed you, go read it you lazy faggot

You havn't read it. Thanks I will read it.

I will try, but my english is shitty.
The main points in my oppinion is that the industrial society take us further from fullfilling work and generates ansiety.
You have to take that fullfilement feel from something else, this is usally consumism.
Also the technology make us more dependants without make us more happy, creating pain and, again, ansiety.
The manifesto is way better than that, and I already regret write this. It's definetly worth the read, he got a lot of good points and is a quick read.

If you have a more specific doubt, maybe I can adress it better than this trainwreck.

I read the manifesto, and I enjoyed it very much. I actually finished it in about 2 days because I couldn't stop reading. He makes a lot of good criticisms on modern society that you will rarely hear elsewhere. He was a math professor, very intelligent, so the writing is very logical and flows from one point to the next. Overall, his vision is flawed because he thinks primitive societies are superior, even though progress is inevitable no matter how many times we "reset." But what I extracted is that technology has many unforeseen consequences that, if ignored, could lead to a dystopia which we could not escape. Just make sure when you read it you don't allow yourself to hate technology as much as he did, or you'll become depressed, a terrorist, or maybe you'll just live in the woods.

Bump for Satan

You make it sound very interesting. Thanks for clearing some things up for me. He has been labeled as a crazy weirdo who can't string together coherent thoughts. I'm downloading his stuff right now.

I don't understand this "young political right" thing. Is he not a textbook anarcho-primitivist? I don't think you can possibly be more left-wing than that.

>progress

He was definitely intelligent, but you should read about his life after you read the manifesto. He definitely had some social problems that may have contributed to his ideology and willingness to bomb people. Sure, his actions were bad, but this is why most people will criticize his work, not the writings themselves, but the bombings, because it's very hard to counter his logical concerns with the increasing problems associated with technology.

He really should have focused on bombing governmental/corporate buildings and industrial factories.

I shouldn't have used that word due to the connotations, but change is inevitable so long as humans are rational. Kaczynski addresses this, saying, "oh well, at least we delayed the system from destroying humanity by a few thousand years. Maybe humans in the future will do the same as we did, and so on, and we'll repeat the cycle"

He is not a typical anarcho-primitivist. He barely is anarcho.
His manifesto is more economical than political, he doesnt try to dismantle the State per si, just the Industrial Society. After the downfall of the IS, he can't care less about the government that will take place.

The manifesto has a part against the left, that probably explain the right wing interest.

Than they probably wouldn't have published his manifesto. He is criticized because he lost and that's it. Everyone looks bad in the face of failure.
He killed 2 people and got his entire manifesto published, it's low damage as hell. He would surely get support if he wasn't found.

translation
>grug like ted memes on twitter

Attached: DNWDPNQX4AAllVQ.jpg (661x1037, 70K)

i thought the papers he sent it to refused to publish him at the time.ganna have to agree on this one. A lot of misdirected anger.

This user is retarted.

Kek comparing Ted to Green Peace ect. Is this a joke or what am i looking at?

you sound like a liberal faggot

They don't refused, user. At least I think they didn't.
I think he would not get attention if he bombed just buildings.
He talks about his bombings in the manifesto.

The difference between left and right wings of our system have almost no meaning these days to be quite honest. Especially under the terms in which the parties were created

Well i must be.

An important point to remember is that ISAIF, like 1984 and Brave New World, are mainly showing the dangers of the future by observing the future. Thiough Kaczynski mostly focuses on the differences between the past and the present, highlighting the problems of modern society, what he REALLY wants you to realize is that the future will be much worse.

observing the present*

Yes, it's very interesting, and pretty much correct even if you disagree with Ted's conclusion. He is *absolutely* coherent. Imo he's brilliant.

It's really short, just read it
editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf

Thats how Vito Corleone shot a guy in Godfather Part II. Does it really silence your gun?

That's the gun that killed Franz and started WW1. It was hid under a hankercheif. Yes it was silent.

His manifesto is still talked about today, and I'm certain that it influenced many intellectuals who are smart enough to not mention it in public. I wouldn't call it a complete failure.

Btw he has a new book from 2016, pic related

Attached: 31hmIZu1KnL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (333x499, 19K)

No it’s about how in the manifesto kaczinkski talks about leftists taking over movements, therefore destroying the movements original purpose. It’s not comparing him to green peace, just how green peace is using environmentalism for the wrong reasons.

Is it really made out to be that incoherent? I have read it and agreed with nearly everything he said, save for some of the things about scientists and leftists. The harsh truth about ISAIF is that Ted sacrificed pleading guilty rather than insanity to preserve the integrity of the manifesto, without being emotionally aware enough to realize that the general public will never be able to separate the work from the author, regardless of the truth and importance that the work holds by itself.

Like you suggested, most criticism comes from those who haven't read it. Or, to use an illustrative example, the kind of opinion you would expect a Salon contributor would have after reading anything right of Marx.
You probably already know the crux of Ted's work is advocating for a life in nature. If that interests you, read it and come to your own conclusions. His intelligence is certainly far above that of many modern "intellectuals" heavily praised by academia and, consequently, in review websites and the like. If this wasn't true, he wouldn't have gotten a full ride to Harvard in the 60s. You know, when their admission process was actually about being qualified, as opposed to having an unfortunate background or something of the kind.

I’m reading this book right now (I read technological slavery a while back). I was hoping for for philosophy on technology, but it’s mainly about revolutions and how they can work. Still interesting but not what I was hoping for. If you want some good philosophy on technology read pic related Kaczinkski was heavily inspired by it and it goes way deeper than he did.

Attached: image.jpg (750x1334, 421K)

People who make it out for gibberish are fragile, illiterate technocrats and bourgeoisie.
>Overall, his vision is flawed because he thinks primitive societies are superior, even though progress is inevitable no matter how many times we "reset."
Delusional technocrat, kys.

I actually think that his work might become popular again seeing how we're pretty much on our way to cyberpunk. Meaning the ideas will be reiterated by academics and all kinds of contrarians. I wouldn't be surprised if we this ISAIF-like counterculture in our lifetimes

He's post-left and a primitivist. Post-left is similar to anarcho-primitivism but necessitates a rejection of orthodox leftism. Ted very much speaks out against the impotence of folk like syndicalists and socdems, who seek to change the system rather than eradicate it.

>it’s mainly about revolutions and how they can work.
That's actually exactly what I was hoping for, awesome. Yeah your pic is on my reading list for a long while now, I didn't know it inspired Ted. Will read for sure.

You're probably right that a primitive counter-culture will emerge, but I just don't think that we will see the words of the Unabomber will be any more accepted than they are now.

It never amazed me, even after rereading; rather, it is surprising that few have considered the ideas under their own conviction.

>scientists are good becuz i dont want to give up muh ideology

Theory is bullshit. Ted actually acted on his theory and is rotting in prison for it while technocratic capitalist pigs are fucking us all and killing the planet.

They will suck like that cult in the Bruce Wallace movie Surrogates.

That's my point, that the exact same points the Ted raised will be reiterated by legitimate individuals, around which a legitimate movement can form. It may be that the ideals and methods of that counterculture will be de facto the Unabomber speaking.

Yeah, that's kinda what i was looking for too. He wants revolution.

Just a tip for reading it (I’m still not done). Ellul was French and used the term technique a lot which is kind of confusing at first. It’s difficult to define and a lot of time is spent trying to define it. It’s mainly used to describe the technological society and the systems within it. So it isn’t technology itself but technique contains machines and technology within it. Very interesting stuff.

You translate theory into propaganda lad. It's essential to revolution as well.

It was very interesting just not what I expected. Read technological slavery if you get the chance as well. It contains a lot of letters from ted that preceded a lot of his ideas about revolution. He also does an amazing debunking of anarcho primitivism and it’s myths that made Zerzan cut ties with him.

I didn't even know he wrote a second book. If i like the first thing he wrote I certainly will check it out.

Yes, propaganda.
That is action.
Fuck off, socdem retard.

Always glad to see reliable opinions such as this one

Attached: 1520372834124.jpg (3743x5614, 2.14M)

No they did not refuse. They published it and his brother recognized his brothers writing. His brother turned him in.

Watch out, you could end up, I don't know, LIVING IN THE WOODS! Now, you wouldn't want that, would you?

>socdem
lmao no way in hell
What kind of action? You can't organize for shit

Either that or keep your 9-5 job and be indefinitely depressed

kek

Well I was indefinitely depressed before reading it, so I haven’t really noticed a difference.

>what kind of action
Living in the woods as primitively as possible and terroristic action against technocrats.
Ted did that. Ellul did not. Never trust a Frenchman who cannot act on their theory.

I've been depressed before reading this and it hit me really hard. Definitely stayed with me and worsened my depression.
That's my point, just occasional individuals doing this is ineffective. If you don't organize at least to some degree you don't achieve anything.

I love you

You don't seem to understand what influence is.
Depression doesn't exist, it's state violence. You've been tricked, no wonder you're a glorified socdem.

>Depression doesn't exist, it's state violence.

This, where the fuck does one get this notion that its irrational to be depressed

I've read online he receives and responds to fan mail, has anyone here contacted him?

You're putting words in my mouth and call me names(that don't even make any sense), how the fuck am I supposed to respond? You're gonna fight the technocrats in a very ineffective way if you're going to just mail bombs. Real influence doesn't come solely from violence.
Didn't say that it's irrational. I understand that it's a natural response to the tech sys.

Depression is definitely something which occurs as a result of unbalanced brain chemistry

Technology is not optional, it demands a systematic presence in society.

Man is totally dependent upon technology and this bond becomes deeper with each passing decade.

Humans are taken out of their natural environment and this starts to cause mental problems

Humans use technology to cope with the damage technology has done to their psyche

The coping takes the form of pseudo activities that do not have anything to do with being alive. People make nonsense figurines out of wood in their shed, build cars, play vidya and go fishing just to throw the fish back. They’re basically psychotic and most of their “free time” is spent pretending to do actual activities.

Technology is destroying ecology, this doesn’t need to be argued for. Can’t wait for some /pol/ or economist/biz nigger to say otherwise.

The world will likely fall into a 6th extinction event because mankind is addicted to technology

Technology will be suggested as a solution to technology’s ills. This is the pathological automatic response to all problems in technological society.

People will demand more energy, convenience and entertainment even as the need for mitigation of environmental and resource crises become worse

Humans have become oversocialized due to technology. The solitude of the fields, the homestead, the hunt and gathering or fishing are gone. Men are now completely collectivist pack animals who can’t bear to be alone.

Humans have become hyper agreeable, any behavior associated with aggression, individualism or lonesome predisposition is considered bad and either medicated, socially punished or ostracized if expressed

Liberalism and modern capitalist oriented conservatism encourage this oversocialization

People who are not at all victims of political or social repression are the strongest advocates of liberalism because they’re the most over socialized


blacks are not as agreeable or open as white liberals, this is because liberals live in high technology societies with no pressure to develop a sense of self, tribe or survival

The world has experienced nothing but evil since the industial revolution. Napoleonic wars, 2 world wars, endless vile proxy wars, depleted uranium bombs, napalm, agent orange, nukes are all forms of technology and in fact most technology is for building war machines and surveillance/propaganda weapons

media encourages oversocialization and technology usage

people are totally insane and have no connection with nature, hence the Nietzschean Nihilism of techno-capitalism mulching all natural resources in sight

Humans are severely overpopulated and while this might change in the distant future, in the next 100 years (he was almost exactly right with this) our population will swell to unacceptable levels, mostly poor and starving people who we won’t and cannot take care of

Technology cannot be mitigated, it all needs to be destroyed as it produces more of itself by mitosis

>Never trust a Frenchman who cannot act on their theory
This should be written on stone tablets

>Never trust a man who cannot act on their theory
FTFY

Attached: inaccurate info.png (593x658, 505K)

If you want to be aware of more problems that don't have solutuions, go right ahead.

Kys
Fuck off redditor. Depression doesn't exist.

Oh

Pleas explain

Liberalism and modern capitalist oriented conservatism encourage this oversocialization

Please explain a little more on that please?

I've heard about it as well, but I guess it depends on the content of your letter.

And what caused such inbalance?
I suppose you understand our actions impact brain chemistry

literally nobody gives a shit about primniggers, if all of humanity were to revert to that state the world might as well be swallowed by the sun for all anyone cares

I've read the manifesto myself and this is a good summary.

That is still more influence than most other books have.

Burzum fans.

Both left and right serve the establishment. Possible solutions often fit in neither category, Ted being an example. The media and government reinforces the dogma surrounding these categories as a way to mould public opinion. For instance, very few people bother to make an overall examination of their beliefs, which means most people define themselves as left or right due to one or some shared beliefs, and go along for the ride in regards to other subjects.
Example:
If you bring up you're an environmentalist, people will label you as left. If you criticize greenpeace, they will either see you as a fringe leftist or some weird inbetween. Then you criticize communism/socialism or, better yet, the egalitarian dogma. Thus you're "expelled" from the left. When you "arrive" on the right, you're already seen as a weirdo because you call yourself an environmentalist. If you criticize bible thumpers, you are now seen as a fringe of the right. So on and so forth.
The above is not that useful, I just felt like writing it.
The crux of the matter is this: both left and right serve the establishment in different ways. Each wing captivates people with a certain personality and/or background, and uses them as another bolt in the machine. Let's take the extremes:
In communism, despite the utopic ramblings, what results is a tiny group of people subjugating the population and gathering resources for themselves.
In capitalism, despite the utopic ramblings, what results is a tiny group of people subjugating the population and gathering resources for themselves.

The methods are different, the end result is the same. To a certain extent, at least. I'd say capitalism is even worse. Why? Have you read 1984 and Brave New World? The premise in the former is a communist like state, in the latter a capitalist like state.
Communist:
>"direct" oppression, surveillance, openly restricting speech
Capitalist:
>focus on pleasure, thus people are too busy looking for the next hormonal rush to care about surveillance, limitations on freedom of speech etc

Look at Europe. Eastern Europe suffered a lot, but they grew a thick skin, and thus they fight the core issue: demographic replacement. Western Europe had economic prosperity, thus it grew lenient. They might have not suffered so much on the short term, but they are lenient on the core issue: demographic replacement.

You're a prime example of the peanut brain so characteristic of the modern human. Urrah

Attached: 1516929263018.jpg (540x540, 86K)

What you're complaining about corresponds to the desire for recognition in the Hegelian tradition. You should read about it, new gender theorists that bother to read him love it.

can't win if do not play

What are you going to do, bomb me?

Ignore you. Your willfull blindness will do you more bad than I ever could.

>i'm retarded and you can't stop me

I look forward to the landian depersonalized superintelligences processing you into fuel.