The Unabomber thread

Eusebius

Hummingbird
Gold Member
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.
 

MajorStyles

Pelican
RE: Is the unabomber right?

RawGod said:
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.
 
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:

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]

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]
 

Blaster

Ostrich
Gold Member
RE: Is the unabomber right?

RawGod said:
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.
 

ChicagoFire

Kingfisher
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.

Thot Leader said:
I think this thread warrants further discussion. There's a lot of stuff in the manifesto that many here would agree with. Ex:

"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.
 
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.

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/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
RE: The Unabomber Manifesto - Industrial society and it's future

I actually think modern technology and its dangers are topics that are both aggressively ignored and deeply in need of attention.

Maybe you can ask the Mods to change the title of that original thread to Dangers of Modern Tech Thread or something, because it has already valuable posts about Ted and his works, but perhaps it's better to make it more broad as there are many authors worth of note in this sphere (Ellul and Postman off the top of my head).

Ted's most original contribution is not the analysis of technological society itself, but the specific phenomenon of the 'leftist activist' that arises from it. But from my own interactions here, the dangers of modern technology are not taken that seriously by most here (yet).
 
RE: The Unabomber Manifesto - Industrial society and it's future

The entire Unabomber story reeks of false flag and is substantiated by scores of data. Obviously the manifesto is logical, because by association making logical counter-arguments to the current insanity discredits those arguments.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
RE: The Unabomber Manifesto - Industrial society and it's future

Simeon_Strangelight said:
The entire Unabomber story reeks of false flag and is substantiated by scores of data. Obviously the manifesto is logical, because by association making logical counter-arguments to the current insanity discredits those arguments.

Can you elaborate?
 

kazz

Kingfisher
RE: The Unabomber Manifesto - Industrial society and it's future

ilostabet said:
I actually think modern technology and its dangers are topics that are both aggressively ignored and deeply in need of attention.

Maybe you can ask the Mods to change the title of that original thread to Dangers of Modern Tech Thread or something, because it has already valuable posts about Ted and his works, but perhaps it's better to make it more broad as there are many authors worth of note in this sphere (Ellul and Postman off the top of my head).

Ted's most original contribution is not the analysis of technological society itself, but the specific phenomenon of the 'leftist activist' that arises from it. But from my own interactions here, the dangers of modern technology are not taken that seriously by most here (yet).



I have been thinking about this a bit over the past 5 years or so with the rise of internet influence on things. The world is incredibly complex, this creates jobs and spending/buying etc. But it seems like a house of cards.
 

questor70

Ostrich
RE: The Unabomber Manifesto - Industrial society and it's future

I've gone down this rabbit hole. Some links for further reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism
https://www.amazon.com/Ishmael-Novel-Daniel-Quinn/dp/0553375407
https://www.johnzerzan.net/
https://medium.com/united-green-alliance/building-solidarity-in-the-anti-civ-movement-63ccc21986f7

I think the entire argument rests on a single thesis, which is civilization as the root of all evil, and civilization being defined as the agricultural revolution onward. Civilization is defined as a meme that arose seemingly external to human nature and imposed on us in an oppressor/oppressed fashion. In this respect, this narrative tends to appeal to the left (seemingly in opposition to the manifesto section about the left).

If you were to summarize all of this down into a slogan it would be "the noble savage". It is an idealization of our pre-agricultural past best illustrated in Pocahontas (just muse over how SJW-style holier-than-thou and accusatory Colors of the Wind is) or Avatar and the pending sequels. This is an attractive proposition as it is the deepest form of nostalgia you can possibly evoke. To get back to the garden, so to speak. But it is a flawed theory.

Nature has shown itself to be ultimately amoral, not utopian. Tribal societies were violent, perhaps not so much within the tribe, but certainly between tribes. Even chimps engage in the same sort of low-level warfare of tribal bands. And for you red-pillers out there, simple one-on-one competition for mates is hardly limited to homo-sapiens. Also, many native groups were in fact agriculturalists too, blurring the line between hunter-gatherer and civilized.

So I just don't think we can put the genie back in the bottle. What we've wrought as a species reflects who we are in the aggregate rather than it being some delusion we've somehow been brainwashed into believing.

We seek short-term comfort and pleasure and embrace the cheapest, laziest approach to getting it.

No amount of letter-bombing or other extremism will change that.
 

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
RE: The Unabomber Manifesto - Industrial society and it's future

ilostabet said:
Simeon_Strangelight said:
The entire Unabomber story reeks of false flag and is substantiated by scores of data. Obviously the manifesto is logical, because by association making logical counter-arguments to the current insanity discredits those arguments.

Can you elaborate?

The idea being that by having those logical positions and arguments associated with a "psychopath" such as Kaczynski they will lose credibility / value by contamination

220px-Theodore_Kaczynski_2.jpg


What "normal" person would read much less agree with what this "nutjob" has to say ?
 

BBinger

Kingfisher
PapayaTapper said:
ilostabet said:
Simeon_Strangelight said:
The entire Unabomber story reeks of false flag and is substantiated by scores of data. Obviously the manifesto is logical, because by association making logical counter-arguments to the current insanity discredits those arguments.

Can you elaborate?

The idea being that by having those logical positions and arguments associated with a "psychopath" such as Kaczynski they will lose credibility / value by contamination

220px-Theodore_Kaczynski_2.jpg


What "normal" person would read much less agree with what this "nutjob" has to say ?

During his trial the DOJ tried, and tried, and tried repeatedly to get the Dr. Kaczynski declared insane and forcibly medicated. They apparently did this for the social value of marginalizing him as a whackjob.

The man managed to get his writing out to the masses before the internet took off. With a minimum of casualties, the mathematics Phd managed to make all of the major US papers his bitch.

Now after 9-11-2001, the situation reads differently because "muh terrorists" and such. Nevermind that during the 1960's and 1970's Obama's mentors were exploding more ordinance inside US borders than "the muslims" ever managed to. Quite a few of the 60's and 70's left leaning domestic terrorists have cushy University tenured gigs...

It's hard for me to imagine two countries more different than the US in 1985 and the US a mere 20 years later in 2005.
 

Kid Twist

Hummingbird
I have said this in the past, Theodore had invaluable insights at times, but his lack of faith in greater things was his downfall. Understanding that suffering virtuously is the greatest of all achievements is something he couldn't grasp, because he weighted everything to the material, and far too much.

With all of his talents he could have gone through the same or even less suffering, and enlightened far more people, but he didn't want to cooperate with God. I pray that he will come to this knowledge. Perhaps he already has; this I do not know.

There is more than just "this" life.
 
This was also an earlier move to discredit those who would question technology. Go read books on computers and programming languages and the gateway to the computer age, you will understand that there was a huge push for this "progress" and "advancement" by technocrats whose progeny are holding the reins today, when we were doing just fine in the steampunk days.

Many computer experts believed in building a "tower of babylon" similar to the one from biblical lore. They partially succeeded.

Everything is set up to take a fall so that power is consolidated in the hands of a few and the rest are controlled. This is why its important to stay at least ten steps ahead of modern day software / hardware. Ted was an MK Ultra expendable, and he was used for a great purpose: to discredit those who would question the rising surge of technological invasions.

Now we all have dumbphones and lethal smart meters and all our lives are in this spider's web of the cloud (well most of ours are). Hegelian Dialectics to the nth degree.
 

renotime

Ostrich
Gold Member
defguy said:
All speculation of course but I think he was so socially aware with his 200+ IQ that he realized no one would take him serious unless he did something drastic... Look at how many people have read Mein Kampf and various other stories written by or about Notorious Criminals. A small part of me thinks with his genius IQ he could have figured a way to spread his message without resorting to drastic measures but I have trouble wrapping my head around how... Now we live in a different time with Social Media, the next "unabomber" could be a social media demagogue.

He had an IQ of 167, putting him slightly higher than the likes of Jobs, Zuckerberg, and Gates.

The guy was given every chance to succeed, getting into Harvard as a teenager with a full ride. Even now his writing is still well received in academic circles. He could have made something of himself without blowing up people, and he actually did before he ran off into the woods.

My grandfather had an IQ of 170. When he was in the military he'd take planes apart and put them back together and he had no training in this at all.
He ended up living his last days in a trailer near the beach with a 2nd wife that was 30 years younger.

IQ will certainly give you a leg up in the world, but it's no guarantee you'll end up with a mansion in the hills.
 
Top