Ted "unabomber" kaczynski

Pretty much exactly right in his political takedowns, the sadomasochism of the modern political "left" in particular, while a bit more muddled in his ideological anarchoprimitivism.
The reasons for the attacks, and his subsequent fame, mostly seems to come down to a breakdown from having his cottage retreat threatened at that.

>but i stopped reading when he started talking shit about feminism.
made me chuckle.

Wew you almost had me with this one, I had half a response typed up. Pretty good bait man

Pretty much this His worldview and predictions were pretty spot on, he just handled the realization like a fucking autist.

>i stopped reading when he started talking shit about feminism
You were doing so well

He's a genius but his methods were wrong.

No one would have read his manifesto if he hadn't committed those crimes.

There have probably been thousands of people just like him over the years, living and dying in obscurity because no one cared.

Sure, but the method he chose clearly didn't work either. It turns out terrorizing people doesn't make them want to listen to you.

So, he was right about the problems he saw in society, but no more effective in affecting change than any random bozo who knows a bad idea when he sees one.

It will gain traction with edge lords the way Mein Kapf and My Twitsed World has though.

I'd say he got his manifesto as much publicity as a thing like that can possibly get.

Exactly the wrong people to bring into your movement. Anyone who would support Kaczynzski's manifesto outright today would be laughed off as an edgy soon-to-be mental patient.

Not all publicity is good publicity. He poisoned the well, and now anyone who advocates the same issues has to watch what they say to avoid association with him.

Was he an extremist or did he just understand that it's impossible to change society radically without violence?

>did he just understand that it's impossible to change society radically without violence
If he did, he did an extremely shit job branding it. He made himself the most hated man in America, not a savior of the revolutionary vanguard.

Will autistics like him ever realize that your tone is as important as your message? That psychology is as important as strategy?

Interesting, though he has some vague reasoning in a few areas, and some of his stronger points suffer for being linked to his weaker ones.

His other essays are pretty neat reads, though. Particularly where he talks about why he thinks The System is doomed to fail, how The System tricks those in it into correcting its problems inder the guise of rebelling against it, and why he thinks anarcoprimitivist claims that primitive lifestyles are all smiles are full of shit.

>special snowflake
the irony

Thank you for this nataliapost, have one in return.

>all these people saying he undermined his message by sending bombs

How many of you would recognize his name 20 years after the fact if he hadn't sent those bombs? Someone like John Zerzan doesn't have nearly the name recognition even though he's been making similar arguments for decades.

K didn't expect that everyone in America would immediately come around to his position if only they were exposed to it, and he realized that "terrorist" is a politically-charged and reversible label.

Before he was imprisoned, Nelson Mandela helped to orchestrate dozens of bombings of military bases, power plants, etc. across South Africa. I'm not drawing a moral equivalence between him and the Unabomber, but pointing out that violence can be an effective way of spreading your message, and that resorting to violence does not necessarily require giving up the "moral high ground" in the long run.

Nelson Mandela had the advantage of advocating for what amounted to a 90% majority. Even while he was branded a terrorist, you can imagine that many South African blacks didn't agree.

Even "Islamic terrorists" today have "a people" from which they can hope to gather sympathizers.

The Unabomber made himself famous, yes, but he also made his message infamous. Like I said, he poisoned the well. His actions didn't successfully draw supporters to his cause, and in fact probably pushed would-be sympathizers away. This is a net negative, as opposed to net neutral (which would probably have been the result of unremarkable, but peaceful advocacy).

more like the ramblings of a traumatised CIA torture victim famalam

>. I'm not drawing a moral equivalence between him and the Unabomber,
You shouldn't, Teddy wasn't a warcriminal

Just vote, bro! You can change everything! Trump! Not establishment! MAGA!

muh propaganda of the deed

youtube.com/watch?v=xLqrVCi3l6E

I wonder if Ted would back Trump? He would likely deride him as a downright moron, but would probably love to see someone put into office that has a decent chance to fuck up the system via their ineptitude.

I think that he made some incredibly sharp observations and was generally on the right track when thinking about humanity's future. The bombings I'm not too sure about. He was probably feeling rather desperate and isolated as others have said and god knows how much the CIA systematically breaking your mind effects your ability to make reasonable decisions.

I'm personally very concerned about the future of the environment in my country and local region in particular but my local 'Green' party who I could vote for to represent these views are more concerned with making weed legal and letting people use whatever bathrooms they want in public than actually solving any real problems.

Is it really only possible to sympathise with the man if you're a borderline schizophrenic? The way I see it you'd have to be insane not to agree with most of what he says.

it's what happens when you send 16yos to harvard

they can't cope socially and become antisocial

if the "system" was so fragile that a retarded president would be able to mess it up you'd think it would have happened already, most recently with Bush. i hope Trump wins just to see what happens but its too optimistic to think he'd have any real impact

>the president can do anything

Ted is smarter than that.

There was a guy who wrote Kaczynski pretending to be a child seeking for advice. He wrote other famous criminals, too. Can't remember where I found it, unfortunately.

Does someone have the link?

I remember that. Kaczynski's response is pretty much exactly what you'd expect from a humanitarian autist. He seems like a very nice and civil man from what I've seen of his letters.

Thanks to technology the world is becoming better. Less wars, less crimes, better living standards, improved health, IQ levels rising, less poverty, and, if we hopefully soon apply latest technologies, the environment will improve, too.

Yeah, if you'd judge him only by his letters, you'd think he's a kind uncle living somewhere distant.

I'd still like the link though. Google gives me nothing but ordinary letters from killers/criminals.

nevermind, I got it! Some other great and funny responses in there, too

ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/22909174.html

lol

All the very valid points. Except that his solution is shit-tier. But again, nobody offered a better idea over all the years that anarchistic ideas were out there. So yes, he's Cassandra.

Found the sane person. There's always one.

-serious question-
Do anarchists really think they are fighting oligarchism?

>world is becoming better
>sane
I don't know about where you live but my country is determined to overpopulate itself despite our environmental resources already being strained beyond their limits. Oh no, but it's okay, we have the 'latest technologies.'

No amount of efficient irrigation is going to make Australia's water use sustainable at this point. We need less of everything, but at the same time our government thinks it's reasonable to aim to damn near double our population in the next 50 years.

>affecting
Effecting

Nobody who lauds My Twisted World is going to find the Unabomber manifesto an easy enough read. MTW is in a large part appreciated because of its appeal to people with a very low reading age.

I don't say the same thing about Mein Kampf only because certain people at the time who were intelligent got whipped up into a frenzy (Heidegger is an obvious example), but you could say something very similar. Hitler was a poor artist and a worse writer.

>No amount of efficient irrigation is going to make Australia's water use sustainable at this point.
Got any sources about this to hand?

I was thinking globally and in long terms. There are setbacks, there will always shitty places to live, there will be wars, psychopaths on killing sprees, and whatever disasters - but I truly believe that the general direction is up

The environment is getting (much, much) worse, crime has been dropping for centuries and has nothing to do with technology, IQ levels are declining, wars have the potential to be far more destructive than before, and we're heading towards Malthusian catastrophe due to the third world's fertility rates.

You're a retard.

Do you think the human race will still exist in 3000 years?

>Got any sources about this to hand?
No, I studied it for 6 months in high school though.

The current situation is that despite improvements being made throughout the Murray Darling Basin area (Very big and important part of Australia's agricultural industry) there isn't enough water to give farmers all that they want while at the same time keeping enough aside to maintain the river-system's health.

As improvements keep coming along there will be more and more water to distribute between the two but that's assuming that the rainfall and river flows remain constant, which any Australian can guarantee you they won't. Over the past few years we've actually been experiencing exceptionally good annual rainfall. So good that it was considered a freak event of nature when it started.

But the thing about the climate down here is that it works in cycles. What we're experiencing right now is known as a La Nina, a cool cycle on our end of the Pacific. This is good for agriculture. In the coming years it'll be our turn to deal with the El Nino, the dry cycle. This is a rougher period but not cataclysmic by any means.

What's scary is the idea of Australia being hit with a significant drought, as happened in 2000, at the same time as an El Nino. This doubling up of dryness would significantly limit the amount of water available in the Basin and it can be expected that in this circumstance the river and the farmers would suffer greatly. The improved irrigation measures certainly help, but they're only supplementary. When we have water it's good, it helps us get more out of it. But if there isn't enough water there simply isn't enough. And it seems like there is a fair chance that this could happen within the next few years.

>general direction is up
I wouldn't be that surprised if the first world largely begins to collapse. We'll either overpopulate until we explode or regress due to 'coffin-shaped' population demographics (google it).

>crime has been dropping for centuries and has nothing to do with technology
It has to do with changes in society
And these are largely imposed by changes in technology
So no, you are a retard.

>we're heading towards Malthusian catastrophe due to the third world's fertility rates.
That's alright

>. I'm not drawing a moral equivalence between him and the Unabomber,
You shouldn't, Teddy wasn't a nigger

whitey and bantu fuck off from khoi-san lands

yes, as long as not some comet hits our planet and we are not able to prevent it, or have some outpost in space

yes, maybe our or a future generation will experience some horrible times, but if you think in a few 100 year terms, I think it's getting better

>It has to do with changes in society, caused by changes in technology
lmao, fantastic argument, that's not at all a meaningless sweeping statement which you can't possibly prove.

Crime rates in the West have been dropping essentially for as long as we have have the data to know, and this is due to the fact that criminals are imprisoned and executed, which historically has lowered their fertility compared to the population at large, and consequently the frequency of their genes, being that criminal behaviour is strongly heritable.

Ah I see, you fell for the star trek meme. This explains the optimism.

that's because in 100 years retards like you will have been eliminated from the genepool for being too autistic to have sex with a woman

Nah, I rather read some nasa blog than watch those silly actors talking cliche. To be honest, I don't think there will be a space colony or whatever sci-fi fantasy in the next few 100 years. Even on the ISS men will be replaced by robots sooner or later. They are cheaper and better. I just thought to mention it as one possibility.

The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

>in a few 100 year terms, I think it's getting better

Yeah, by then the human race will be extinct and the world will be able to just chill again

>a few 100 year terms
I don't know about that. The next ~50 years if you ask me will be a crisis point in the future of humanity and depending on how it's handled it could make or break us, potentially for good.

In the immediate future we're going to have to simultaneously deal with the an ageing populations for the first time in history and the population time-bomb that is an Africa with a reduced death rate clawing its way into 2nd world status.

If we don't enforce population control measures across the whole world I suspect that our future will be one of commieblock housing as far as the eye can see, together with the standard of living that implies.

Glad at least some of us can agree on this
>muh economic growth
Forget baneposting, GDP is the true eternal meme

fuuuuvcvvvkvkvkvkkk

Ah yes, the 14 words. I recite them to myself every morning

>traumatised CIA torture
what

Also worth remembering that he promised to stop the bombings if his manifesto was published, and the only reason they caught him was because his brother ratted him out

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

The CIA decided to mentally break a few of America's best and brightest for the sake of testing how hard they could mindfuck intelligent people into getting the reaction they wanted.

Kacynzski was one of the unlucky few who went through this program. It sounds like it was pretty traumatising. Trained psychologists tearing you down to the base of your being and making you feel awful for the sake of their experiments. He was already supposed to be quite odd going into college but this stuff almost certainly made a more neurotic man out of him.

>durr just kick the can down the road bruv

I know you're a NEET that has like 0% chance of breeding but not all of us are so

Yep, IIRC he wrote in his diary that it made him almost suicidal and gave him an identity crisis

Ted is great. I want to write him a letter after reading his manifesto so I don't ask anything already covered.

I also plan on sending him some extra stamps so he can do whatever with then since I remember in a letter to someone he mentioned they were a bit difficult to get for him.

Psychologically, yes. I think that would've come eventually though no matter what.

I was a technology major in college. A lot of luddite types take his writing very seriously and quote it a lot.

Kind of makes you want to send him a letter and say, "Hey uh...you know if you just published your manifesto academically and didn't kill all those people, you'd probably be taken way more seriously."

Kind of doubt he'd be like, "Oh really? Man...looks like i got egg on my face huh?" he'd probably just throw shit at you and start masturbating.

>published your manifesto academically
He did publish a paper in college that was incredibly similar to his manifesto. That's how they knew it was him behind the bombings. They recognized the same points and writing style in the pieces.

>I was a technology major in college
How is it like being a 5'6 ugly, balding, goblin with zero muscle mass or appeal to women?

The only countries with high birthrates are Africa and the Middle East. If the first world simply does not continue its absurd policy of letting anyone in that lands on its shores, then it can continue to thrive while the third world breeds itself into a Malthusian trap.
Maybe Nigeria will be commieblocks as far as the eye can see, but Europe and the anglosphere don't need to be.

I'm 6'0, have all my hair, only about 20 lbs overweight, and banged probably around 50 girl when i was in college.

I became a tech major because I was a massive fuckup and alcoholic, and spent most of my college time partying.

no, his brother turned him in you raging homosexual

ok, and what it exactly does this have to do with my theory of the future?
If you have a better argument, enlighten us, but don't judge someone's opinion because of his sex life. That's plain retarded.

>his brother turned him in you raging homosexual
His sister-in-law thought the manifesto sounded familiar and raised the issue with his brother. His brother agreed and reluctantly showed it to a lawyer (think he was a lawyer) who started digging around and found Ted's old academic paper. I remember seeing an interview with the guy. He said something like 'I remember looking up from the papers and not being able to tell which one I had just been reading.'

>Maybe Nigeria will be commieblocks as far as the eye can see, but Europe and the anglosphere don't need to be
Key word there being 'need.' Of course Europe doesn't 'need' it. Nobody does. That isn't enough to stop it from happening. Europe has taken in a very large number of immigrants over the past few years not even counting the huge intake caused by the recent crisis or whatever you want to call it and this trend is only showing a few signs of stopping. Unless alt-right groups seize control of significant parts of Europe I don't see immigration ending.

Everyone knows how painful it will be to deal with a population with more people in its older generations than the younger ones and is trying to hold it off for as long as possible. It seems to me like it's inevitable and only going to get worse the longer we hold it off so we might as well bear the strain now and set ourselves up for the future rather than keep throwing band-aids on this issue until humanity is ready to explode.

But is it even possible today to make such a large scale decision? All I see are riots and chaos breaking out over a decision like this. Technology has given voice to too many people and has taken away any possibility of rational discourse.

Removing a few millions of unwanted elements from the country proved itself to be very much possible. So immigrants aren't that much of a problem.

>But is it even possible today to make such a large scale decision?
China can do it. Everywhere else it'd be fucking murder to get done but I still see it as doable.

I think that the key would be finding a way to convince people it's necessary. Doing it would be simple.

If the pope could be convinced I think that that alone would work wonders in Africa. The Catholic Church's 'abstinence' bullshit is incredibly harmful and they know it doesn't work, just they see the future as a numbers game and think that an Africa with 4.5 billion people and 1.5 billion Christians is more desirable than an Africa with 2 billion people and 400 million Christians. (I don't know actual statistics off the top of my head)

Islam and the Middle-East would be harder. Iran's old secular government was taking steps towards lowering their birthrate but then they got CIAd and now the guys in charge demand bigger families because Allah needs more loyal soldiers. Talking them down would be hellish.

Afghanistan has a fucked birth rate but that's because the country's so dangerous. Improving infrastructure and support networks together with not actively fucking stable countries for the sake of foreign interests would also go a long way. Stable and wealthy countries don't breed like nymphomaniac rats.

I think that what would really give this a shot at working is giving people an idea that it's a uniting and fair cause. My first idea for this is 'One child per parent.' Each person on the planet is entitled to one child. This means each couple gets two. You can sell your right to the government for cash or something, or you can give it to someone, sell it to someone, auction it off, whatever.

Obviously this would be exploitable as hell but I think it's a start. Something like this if implemented perfectly (impossible I know) would keep the human populations from ever increasing and even slowly decrease them. The problem is how long it would take.

elaborate

>elaborate
Hitler and da joos, man. Even killing is not necessary: it's well known that nazis originally planned to expel the jews to wherever (see "Eichmann in Jerusalem"), and only the financial problems due to war made them resort to mass killing. I'm sure that current Europe, being rich, would be able to ship its illegal migrants to ME, Africa or wherever if it had the political will.

>moving people around
That would help Europe if it could be pulled off (enjoy your WW3 if you try) but even then Europe is one continent. Once Africa is eating itself to survive do you think they won't start looking outwards? And do you think Europeans wouldn't start looking back at them and feeling bad?

>the environment will improve
top kek

>Africa with a reduced death rate clawing its way into 2nd world status
They're gonna go communist?

>They're gonna go communist?
I think the communism meme is pretty much dead. I don't know how their government is going to go on the whole. Maybe Nigeria will finally become strong enough to dominate the continent and start pushing everyone else around to become a superpower or something? Or maybe they'll get Libya'd because the powers that be dislike competition.

>(enjoy your WW3 if you try)
lol, and who will be fighting who? This would be popular in Europe and "not my business" everywhere else that's relevant

as for "boo hoo, poor africans", nobody will care for them once it becomes either us or them, and that time is approaching fast.

>you're a retard
What's the point in ending a post with a snarky remark like this? It just makes you look childish.

To be fair, the other user made a pretty retarded point. And user must have wanted to make sure that the tone of his reply was clear.

This. Most young men have at abandoned leftist rhetoric in the Western World anyways.

>leftist rhetoric
The entire planet doesn't operate on America's sliding scale of freedom. Population, immigration and assimilation are very complicated ideas. You can't expect an entire continent to fall onto one side or the other.

>he had thoughts of wanting ro become a woman, and scheduled an appointment to talk to a doctor about the possibility of gender reassignment (secretly for sexual gratification, rather than emotional), but as he sat in the waiting room he realized how insane that was, and made up an excuse for seeing the doctor on the fly

Man, what is it with victims of the government's psychiatric experiments suddenly wanting to be girls?

Perhaps it's a drastic identity crisis brought in from stress. Desiring to escape so much that you think perhaps you can create a new life as a drastically different person: via a different gender.

I donno. I thought the whole Bradley/Chelsea Manning thing was suspicious when it happened shortly after he got absolutely fucked.

I'm talking about a general paradigm shift happening wherein leftist self hatred is being replaced by crass conservatism. SD, FN, etc gain in polls every month.
Both are anti intellectual, but I'm behind the "right". Neo-leftism has become more damaging on a geopolitical scale than neo-cons were in the early 2000s.

People in Europe generally have much more conformity than in USA. Right now the norm is compassion and tolerance, and any other view will generally get you shunned. But if (when) the norm turns, you will be surprised at how unanimously people would agree with the "inhumane", "intolerant" or outright fascistic practices.

Many European countries have a very strong base for leftist (social democrat) politics, though. It might be a bit hard to turn the norm in those places.

Not saying it can't happen, but at least around here the neo-nationalists aren't at their best anymore - their rise has stopped. They got a bunch of protest votes (a lot of them) but currently they have little momentum, the more extreme neo-nazi etc camps are also dying/getting smaller and smaller. The neo-nationalist movement might die out, or maybe it will thrive; there is no definite "when rather than if", though. It is very much an "if" it will ever thrive in every European country

One big possible problem for the populist right: again here, they're teaming up with the "traditional (bourgeoisie) right" when they have to. So they also get hit by a backlash when cuts to welfare, neoliberal policy changes etc don't please the working class (or even middle class).

The young men don't have much reason to prefer the populists when the populists can't sell anything but "m-muh national security" and "l-look at those commies summoning immigrants here"; it starts to seem like a goddamn distraction when the same populists are making cuts to welfare, forcing students to take more loans, healthcare, selling government-owned business even when there is no reason to, etc.
Basically: the populists fail the moment they need to do actual politics and can't do it alone. They can't team up with the egalitarian left for working class-friendly politics and teaming up with the right doesn't really work for their voters. They lose their protesting edge if they need to lean on other parties. They ARE great when they're building a following, but so far they're not so great at keeping it going.