I'm Touring The United States! Starting in June, I'm conducting private events in 23 American cities. Click here for full details.

Post Reply 
The Unabomber thread
Author Message
Geomann180 Offline
True Player
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,822
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 56
Post: #26
RE: Is the unabomber right?
(11-14-2017 08:05 AM)kenny_g Wrote:  This subject came up on another board and one response that I found poignant was something to the effect of, "when you read the ramblings of a madman such as Kaczynski and start thinking, 'you know this guy has a really good point here,' it's time to start looking at your own perspective and consider that it is very possibly flawed."

[snip]

TLDR
The Unabomber is not right.

Considering how my late Grandfather, who fought in WW2 against Nazis, would be considered himself a Nazi today for beliefs he held back then and held until he died, I'd disagree with you here.

I agree with a lot Kaczynksi's diagnosis, just not his prescription.

Considering how I got to this corner of the internet because I was a complete failure with women, only to learn that 'society' lied to me about everything about girls...and how I stayed because that's not the only thing I was lied to about (and am still lied to about, CNN et al).

Considering how crazy the world and mainstream is today, when you find yourself agreeing with them on the "ramblings of a madman such as Kaczynski and start thinking [my perspective must be flawed if I think this guy has a point here], it's time to start looking at your own perspective and consider that it is very possibly flawed.

This is a fun game to play.

G
11-14-2017 08:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 16 users Like Geomann180's post:
amity, MikeInRealLife, debeguiled, Cr33pin, 911, Nordwand, Monty_Brogan, Emancipator, Comte De St. Germain, Ruslan, Davidovich, Renzy, BBinger, infowarrior1, Benoit, Sankt Michael
kenny_g Offline
Game Denialist

Posts: 30
Joined: May 2015
Reputation: 0
Post: #27
RE: Is the unabomber right?
(11-14-2017 08:52 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:  Considering how crazy the world and mainstream is today, when you find yourself agreeing with them on the "ramblings of a madman such as Kaczynski and start thinking [my perspective must be flawed if I think this guy has a point here], it's time to start looking at your own perspective and consider that it is very possibly flawed.

This is a guy who makes no bones about his plan to overthrow governments and societies all over the world in order to revert to one that minimizes its use of technology. Is that really the solution?

No one is disputing his ability to diagnose the problem, but his message of revolution is never more than a few words from any such diagnosis which in my mind makes them impossible to separate and therefore, impossible to advocate for.
11-15-2017 04:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Geomann180 Offline
True Player
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,822
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 56
Post: #28
RE: Is the unabomber right?
Kenny,

Are you able to to take any idea that conflicts with what you believe and suss out merits in it, despite disagreeing with the overall concept?

G
11-16-2017 03:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 6 users Like Geomann180's post:
Buck Wild, Cr33pin, Comte De St. Germain, billbudsocket, Beyond Borders, infowarrior1
Kid Twist Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 2,764
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 33
Post: #29
RE: Is the unabomber right?
This back and forth seems to me to be the classic debate over what to do with knowledge. The truth is always good. What we do with it, at times, isn't.

The people here who appreciate TK appreciate his clear thoughts on particular issues. This does not mean that they endorse "the man" entirely, whatever that means.

Get your passport ready!
11-16-2017 11:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 4 users Like Kid Twist's post:
Geomann180, Beyond Borders, Davidovich, infowarrior1
kenny_g Offline
Game Denialist

Posts: 30
Joined: May 2015
Reputation: 0
Post: #30
RE: Is the unabomber right?
Yeah I'd hope I am able to do that. I even think I demonstrated that by saying that no one is questioning his ability to diagnose society's tech problems. As a matter of fact, the Unabomber is hardly the only figure making such observations so he is not exactly unique in his correctness. His terrorist actions are unique though, so I think he is better classified by those as opposed to the nearly mainstream platitude that growing technological presence in our day to day lives will have negative consequences, so when answering the question "is the Unabomber right?" It seems that no is the best answer.

Walking around with computers in our pockets is quite handy too so how anti tech is it really reasonable to be?
11-19-2017 11:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like kenny_g's post:
Beyond Borders, infowarrior1
[email protected] Offline
Alpha Male
****

Posts: 1,269
Joined: Feb 2016
Reputation: 20
Post: #31
RE: Is the unabomber right?
His main thesis that tech gradually removes your freedom is correct, among other interesting things he pointed out in his essay. Have most of you read it?
11-20-2017 04:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Paeter Offline
Game Denialist

Posts: 27
Joined: Sep 2009
Reputation: 1
Post: #32
RE: Is the unabomber right?
He makes very good points about some of the negatives of modern industrial civilization on the psyche of man. For instance, the need for a feeling of autonomy and power over one's own life is absolutely true. Though I don't think that surrogate activities are necessarily less satisfying than survival activities. Still, he makes an excellent point by pointing them out. Modern people essentially do have to invent things to care about. The only base need we can't get easily thanks to civilization is love. Since that's the only thing industrialization can't solve. Yes, you can get prostitutes if make lots of money, but an actual loving connection cannot be bought. So we all at least have one non-surrogate activity. The frustration of which is often the catalyst to huge amounts of fulfillment through the personal growth and achievement required to get it. Funny how that works.

Then there is his SOLUTION, anarcho-primitivism. No thank you. We can find better solutions. In fact, it seems that the downsides may just be a transition period. As technology gets better, more and more people are finding ways to make income on their own terms.

"Learn cold approach pickup, or you're fucked." - TylerRSD
(This post was last modified: 11-23-2017 12:59 PM by Paeter.)
11-23-2017 12:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like Paeter's post:
Syberpunk, Beyond Borders, Davidovich
911 Offline
International Playboy
******

Posts: 4,723
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 55
Post: #33
RE: Is the unabomber right?
(11-23-2017 12:54 PM)Paeter Wrote:  He makes very good points about some of the negatives of modern industrial civilization on the psyche of man. For instance, the need for a feeling of autonomy and power over one's own life is absolutely true. Though I don't think that surrogate activities are necessarily less satisfying than survival activities. Still, he makes an excellent point by pointing them out. Modern people essentially do have to invent things to care about. The only base need we can't get easily thanks to civilization is love. Since that's the only thing industrialization can't solve. Yes, you can get prostitutes if make lots of money, but an actual loving connection cannot be bought. So we all at least have one non-surrogate activity. The frustration of which is often the catalyst to huge amounts of fulfillment through the personal growth and achievement required to get it. Funny how that works.

Then there is his SOLUTION, anarcho-primitivism. No thank you. We can find better solutions. In fact, it seems that the downsides may just be a transition period. As technology gets better, more and more people are finding ways to make income on their own terms.

Anarcho-primitivism is one of the two societal norms in Huxley's Brave New World. You have that norm with a very primitive people living in the Savage Reservation, without any formal political structure, and the other norm being a tightly-controlled, hierarchized techno-state test-tube family-less modern urban dystopia.

Getting people to relinquish technology and deindustrialize is a good way to control them. That's where global warming comes in as a tool for social control.

λ ό γ ο ς
(This post was last modified: 11-23-2017 05:47 PM by 911.)
11-23-2017 05:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 5 users Like 911's post:
Syberpunk, BBinger, infowarrior1, Benoit, kruger41
LowerCaseG Offline
Banned

Posts: 539
Joined: Feb 2012
Post: #34
RE: Is the unabomber right?
There is a very good movie/documentary called "The Net; The Unabomber, Lsd and the internet" that puts it all that into perspective.
11-23-2017 11:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes LowerCaseG's post:
Beyond Borders
Thot Leader Offline
Wingman
***
Gold Member

Posts: 803
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 11
Post: #35
RE: Is the unabomber right?
I think this thread warrants further discussion. There's a lot of stuff in the manifesto that many here would agree with. Ex:

Quote:"7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self- hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto- dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

He's pretty bang on. I haven't much to add. Of course the man was wrong to use violence to push his agenda, and especially wrong to target random people, but he was clearly a thinker ahead of his time. Probably a consequence of a 170 IQ, going to Berkely and having the CIA administer LSD to you.
07-01-2018 11:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 10 users Like Thot Leader's post:
Beyond Borders, debeguiled, Cr33pin, Davidovich, DamienCasanova, ChicagoFire, Renzy, infowarrior1, Benoit, Hillbilly
ilostabet Offline
Chubby Chaser
**

Posts: 598
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 19
Post: #36
RE: Is the unabomber right?
I am not an anarcho-primitivist, but I am a neo-luddite of sorts, in part influenced by his writings. I recommend everyone to read him without thinking about his later actions. That is the only way you can assess ideas, in my opinion.

I don't think he was right in doing what he did, but there is a context to it that cannot be ignores. He was experimented on by the CIA while in college, as people mentioned. But also, the whole idea of terrorism didn't come about out of the blue, but because he had chosen to live in a remote cabin in the woods and was happy there for while undisturbed, until they started chopping off trees and building highways around him, destroying his totally peaceful way of life and making it harder and harder for him to survive without relying on industrial society by destroying the woods where he hunted and gathered.

I wrote short reviews of his manifesto and collected writings.

here's also a nice podcast about him.
07-03-2018 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like ilostabet's post:
Davidovich, infowarrior1
Kid Twist Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 2,764
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 33
Post: #37
RE: Is the unabomber right?
His going astray in mainly due to the fact that he failed to understand that peace is in God alone and that everything in the material world will be subject to potentially fallenness and madness, if not now, eventually. He has the mind to understand a great deal about physical reality, but needs to develop the spiritual side which will assist in a greater acceptance and harmony even in bad times, amidst the struggles.

My hope is that Ted understands this one day.

Get your passport ready!
07-09-2018 04:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 4 users Like Kid Twist's post:
ilostabet, Davidovich, Monty_Brogan, infowarrior1
Stakes Is High Offline
Beta Orbiter
*

Posts: 136
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 4
Post: #38
RE: Is the unabomber right?
so relevant now at my first reading... he was ahead of his time, definitely. crazy dude, however, i guess it comes with having a 99.99% IQ.. unfortunately he could not communicate and reason his ideas in a more acceptable manner, we might be at a different cultural/technological juncture at this point in time
07-10-2018 03:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like Stakes Is High's post:
Monty_Brogan, PapayaTapper, infowarrior1
frozen-ace Offline
Recovering Beta
*

Posts: 190
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 22
Post: #39
RE: Is the unabomber right?
You can write him a letter-

Theodore John Kaczynski
Reg: 04475-046
US Penitentiary Max
PO Box 8500
Florence, CO 81226-8500
07-11-2018 01:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like frozen-ace's post:
Kid Twist, Cr33pin, infowarrior1
MajorStyles Offline
Wingman
***

Posts: 725
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 7
Post: #40
RE: Is the unabomber right?
I read his book as well and agreed with 99% of his points. Same goes for nearly all the fascist warlords that were supposedly evil. Either they were right or my soul have been overtaken by the dark side...both options are possible.

"Action still preserves for us a hope that we may stand erect." - Thucydides (from History of the Peloponnesian War)
07-11-2018 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes MajorStyles's post:
Cr33pin
RawGod Offline
True Player
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 2,965
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 35
Post: #41
RE: Is the unabomber right?
How did he go from having a fair bit of insight into society, to mailing bombs that will blow the fingers off or kill people? I must have missed something.

Dr Johnson rumbles with the RawGod. And lives to regret it.
07-11-2018 07:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
MajorStyles Offline
Wingman
***

Posts: 725
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 7
Post: #42
RE: Is the unabomber right?
(07-11-2018 07:23 PM)RawGod Wrote:  How did he go from having a fair bit of insight into society, to mailing bombs that will blow the fingers off or kill people? I must have missed something.

I recall a line from the book where he says, "We need to take matters into our own hands," or something to that effect. It was only noteworthy since we know how the story ends. Otherwise, it would juts have been some flippant comment made by an based individual. He never actually mentions sending bombs in the mail, though.

I guess lots of people have a tipping point that goes unnoticed by the general public. They just snap one day and, most likely, we'll never know the true reasons behind the decline.

"Action still preserves for us a hope that we may stand erect." - Thucydides (from History of the Peloponnesian War)
07-11-2018 10:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
ed pluribus unum Offline
Wingman
***

Posts: 844
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 5
Post: #43
RE: Is the unabomber right?
On an impulse many years ago, I picked up a bargain book simply because I recognized the author's name from another book (1939 The Lost World of the Fair).

The book was Drawing Life - Surviving the Unabomber (1997), by David Gelernter, the victim of one of the Unabomber's acts while a professor of Computer Science at Yale.

The flysheet of the book states, "ironically, the perpetrator... managed to punish one of the very few people who are deeply skeptical about computers and openly critical of technology." One is left with the impression that Kaczynski randomly opened the Yale directory under 'Comp Sci Dept' and landed his finger on a random name.

Gelernter is an interesting character.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:In the 1980s, he made seminal contributions to the field of parallel computation, specifically the tuple space coordination model, as embodied by the Linda programming system (named for Linda Lovelace, an actress in the porn movie Deep Throat, mocking Ada's tribute to Ada Lovelace).[4] Bill Joy cites Linda as the inspiration for many elements of JavaSpaces and Jini.[5]

Quote:Gelernter is known for his critiques of cultural illiteracy on U.S. college campuses. In 2015, he commented, "They [students] know nothing about art. They know nothing about history. They know nothing about philosophy. And because they have been raised as not even atheists, they don’t rise to the level of atheists, insofar as they’ve never thought about the existence or nonexistence of God. It has never occurred to them. They know nothing about the Bible." [10] Time Magazine profiled Gelernter in 2016, describing him as a "stubbornly independent thinker. A conservative among mostly liberal Ivy League professors, a religious believer among the often disbelieving ranks of computer scientists."[11] In October 2016, he wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal endorsing Donald Trump for President, calling Hillary Clinton "as phony as a three-dollar bill," and saying that Barack Obama "has governed like a third-rate tyrant." [12] The Washington Post, profiling him in early 2017 as a potential science advisor to Donald Trump, called him "a vehement critic of modern academia" who has "condemned 'belligerent leftists' and blamed intellectualism for the disintegration of patriotism and traditional family values."[13] David Gelernter does not believe in anthropogenic climate change.[14]

"Intellectuals are naturally attracted by the idea of a planned society, in the belief that they will be in charge of it" -Roger Scruton
07-16-2018 12:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 5 users Like ed pluribus unum's post:
Monty_Brogan, Kid Twist, Richard Turpin, BBinger, infowarrior1
Blaster Offline
True Player
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,911
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 26
Post: #44
RE: Is the unabomber right?
(07-11-2018 07:23 PM)RawGod Wrote:  How did he go from having a fair bit of insight into society, to mailing bombs that will blow the fingers off or kill people? I must have missed something.

As a student at Harvard he was subjected to mkultra brainwashing experiments.
07-17-2018 09:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 4 users Like Blaster's post:
debeguiled, Cr33pin, infowarrior1, Hillbilly
ChicagoFire Offline
Wingman
***

Posts: 712
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 4
Post: #45
RE: Is the unabomber right?
I'm conflicted but I still agree for the most part. Only a leftist would want to worry about things that can't be controlled (someone's gender, ethnicity, etc). Bitching about how the police are oppressing you, how the pay gap exists, etc is when my brain turns off and I walk away. If you have a problem FIX IT! Yes, there are ivory tower eggheads (professors) that spew nonsense but have never staked money into their ideas. A prime example would be to advocate for socialism but not let people into your dwellings.

Where I'm conflicted is if liberals cared so much about the working class they would support unions and not the profit first at all costs that in my experience is prevalent with the managerial class in the food industry. I guess that's why the elite through their MSM proxies use a new outrage cycle to distract the public. Still, TK makes some valid points and is vastly smarter than me.

And yes obviously we don't have to go to extremes and murder people to prove a point.

(07-01-2018 11:20 AM)Thot Leader Wrote:  I think this thread warrants further discussion. There's a lot of stuff in the manifesto that many here would agree with. Ex:

Quote:"7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self- hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto- dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

He's pretty bang on. I haven't much to add. Of course the man was wrong to use violence to push his agenda, and especially wrong to target random people, but he was clearly a thinker ahead of his time. Probably a consequence of a 170 IQ, going to Berkely and having the CIA administer LSD to you.

(09-21-2018 09:31 AM)kosko Wrote:  For the folks who stay ignorant and hating and not improving their situation during these Trump years, it will be bleak and cold once the good times stop.
07-18-2018 02:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Cr33pin Offline
Innovative Casanova
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 7,452
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 181
Post: #46
Rainbow RE: Is the unabomber right?



Bruising cervix since 96
#TeamBeard
01-09-2019 02:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Cr33pin's post:
Hillbilly
LowerCaseG Offline
Banned

Posts: 539
Joined: Feb 2012
Post: #47
RE: Is the unabomber right?
https://youtu.be/wr5M6oEx2j4

Great documentary about his intersection with silicone valley and the fathers of the internet. Little slow but very insightful.
01-09-2019 03:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
iThinkThereforeIam Offline
Beta Orbiter
*

Posts: 91
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 1
Post: #48
The Unabomber Manifesto - Industrial society and it's future
Ted Kaczynski also known as the Unabomber was a math prodigy who graduated from Harvard. He was deeply traumatized by an MK Ultra type "purposely brutalizing psychological experiment" led by Harvard psychologist Henry Murray.

He became a professor but as an autistic type of person like most math / programmer guys he wasn't really cut out for it and eventually resigned, living as a recluse in a cabin in the woods.

The isolation made him crazy enough to think he could brute force changes in society, however as a very intelligent guy he predicted the current state of the world even in the 60s in his manifesto.

Quote: 1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.

2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.

3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.

4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can’t predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.

5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM

6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self- hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto- dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/na...o.text.htm
08-29-2019 02:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
ilostabet Offline
Chubby Chaser
**

Posts: 598
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 19
Post: #49
RE: The Unabomber Manifesto - Industrial society and it's future
Dupe - https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-39660.html

The error in the thread title really annoyed me. It's the name of the essay, how can you mess that up? Oh well.

Don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose.
08-29-2019 02:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 5 users Like ilostabet's post:
infowarrior1, spokepoker, Sankt Michael, Benoit, PapayaTapper
iThinkThereforeIam Offline
Beta Orbiter
*

Posts: 91
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 1
Post: #50
RE: The Unabomber Manifesto - Industrial society and it's future
(08-29-2019 02:15 AM)ilostabet Wrote:  Dupe - https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-39660.html

The error in the thread title really annoyed me. It's the name of the essay, how can you mess that up? Oh well.

The link to the manifesto in the thread is dead and it's about as low effort as it gets, which is why I started a new one instead of bumping the old one.
08-29-2019 02:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Me, the Unabomber, and "Acting White" BLarsen 55 31,861 07-03-2014 02:05 PM
Last Post: Giovonny

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication