The Unabomber thread

@renotime

Hi IQ in many cases results in superspecialization. Those kinds of people need to be cared for or else they end up what you describe as. Then they can do many great things. Like how the academic institution that hosted Isaac Newton helped him immensely in allowing him room to focus on his work.

Even Nikola Tesla died peniless in a dead end life since there isnt a group that took care of his needs. Ensuing he went off the deep end.
 
renotime said:
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.

Your grandfather lived near the beach with a wife who was 30 years younger? Sounds like he had it made.
 

VNvet

Kingfisher
MusicForThePiano said:
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.

So you're saying that Ted was an MK Ultra operation?

I kind of believe it. It seems unlikely that he'd flunk out of MK Ultra, and then do an operation that benefits the elite agenda.
 
renotime said:
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.

Actually IQ is correlated positively to financial success up to the high 120s. From the 130s onwards it actually goes down in terms of lifetime financial success.

There are probably a few reasons for that - lack of communication with others, lack of real challenge within the corporate world or even in jobs like a lawyer or doctor, difference in personality structures - probably also a form of experimentation of nature. The ones who obviously use their talents in that range well - they achieve greatness, but on average the 128 IQ guy becomes a CEO, producer, successful MD at a greater percentage than his 148 IQ counterpart.
 
I remember Christian McQueen was always talking about how most millionaires are average IQ. His conclusion was "anyone can make it", intelligence doesn't matter much, etc.

It was fascinating to me because I came to a more obvious conclusion.
 
According to some studies the average self-made millionaire in the business world and even deca-millionaire has an IQ of around 112.

But don't think that IQ does not matter - the average homeless was around 80.

So 112 is somewhat above average, but not too far off. Also the financial results on average still go up to 128/129, because most people who change their socio-economic level do so via high-paid jobs and not via businesses that net them millions. The easy safe way to become a single-digit millionaire is to become a doctor, lawyer and qualified accountent, then work for decades.
 
IQ alone doesn't mean much but race matters a lot as well.

As a tinfoiler I even think it's an elite abstraction so autist IQ whites mix with north east asians (mainly Chinese) so only dumb whites are left and the kids - if any - are Eliot Rodger types who think pure looks without game would help him get laid.

Singapore and Hong Kong allegedly have the highest IQs but in practice they are human calculator types or super conniving with no values beyond money.

Cantonese people have a tiny percent super rich people while everybody else is squeezed for every shekel working 12h days 6 days a week.

Cantonese women are highly aggressive and manipulative - prone to none stop verbal abuse.

Their likeliness of being altruistic in any form or fashion is pretty low.

High levels of psychopathy among cantonese people as well (lots of white collar criminals) and generally unpleasant people that create dysfunctional places without white guidance.

Business success relies on appearing trustworthy, relatable and spitting good verbal game. Above a certain IQ you don't share interests with average people, are too autist to be relatable and don't come across as warm and friendly - all things that will work against you.

You will also need to be able to manage people effectively. Only if you join at the very top of a large organization you might be able to get away with being somewhat unrelateable to regular folks as an IQ pyramid is already in place where mid managers have lower and lower IQs, all the way down to those who manage blue collar laborers.

https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/why-highly-intelligent-people-make-the-worst-leaders

https://w.timothy-judge.com/Leader IQ--JAP published.pdf
 

renotime

Ostrich
Gold Member
BigFellow said:
renotime said:
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.

Your grandfather lived near the beach with a wife who was 30 years younger? Sounds like he had it made.

Well it was Myrtle Beach, which is kind of a shit hole. He was definitely cool, no doubt. Even at 5 I was aware that he had a great intellect.

But he was so restless that he'd move my Grandma and my Dad around every few years trying to start a new business. My grandma eventually got fed up and divorced him.

Not quite a life one would want to emulate.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
I agree having a terrorist as poster child is dumb - even if I do believe in mitigating circumstances, such as the torture he endured as a teenager from the CIA, among other things.

Edit: KT, I also agree that his downfall was not having faith. He could have joined a monastery and be perfectly fine - at least until the system starts encroaching on those, which will eventually happen.

But this is why I started to read other people on the problems of technology, serious scholars without any implication in crimes or even political movements. Kaczynski's contribution to the discussion, after reading other authors, seems to be his analysis of leftist mentality and how it's tied to the technological problem. But other than this, you would be much more well off reading Ellul and Postman, for example.

This is to say that just because Kaczynski was the person that brought this discussion to the mainstream, and that he took his concerns to an extreme level (anarcho-primitivism), doesn't mean the discussion is not worth having and that all of us who have concerns about the technological society and the technical obsession it entails are necessarily in line with radical primitivism or any other ideology.

Personally, I think ideology is a secular substitute for Christ's teachings, so I don't need it. To me a system (political, social, economic) either is in accordance with our nature and against our fall, or it is in accordance with our fall and against our nature. So, is the modern technological world in general, and each applied technique or technology in particular, suited to the worship of Christ and the practice of its teachings?

It's a hard sell, that's all I'm saying.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
ilostabet said:
To me a system (political, social, economic) either is in accordance with our nature and against our fall, or it is in accordance with our fall and against our nature. So, is the modern technological world in general, and each applied technique or technology in particular, suited to the worship of Christ and the practice of its teachings?

Do you think man nature is to follow the laws of nature or the laws of civilization ?
And how do you reconcile christianism not being compatible with either ?
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
I think creation was perfect, but was corrupted by our Fall (along with the rest of creation, including the 'laws of nature').

I don't think Christianity is incompatible with civilization so I don't have to reconcile it - but from the conversations we've had, I think what we have is different conceptions of what civilizations is, or should be.
 

Kid Twist

Hummingbird
There was never a time in which creation was perfect. Our story was one of immediate fall; that's actually the point. That we extrapolate it, is the lesson = we need God and can't do it on our own, which is the true, "original" [ancestral] sin - thinking we can and trying over and over to do it on our own. This is actually what "progressivism" and Babel are.

As far as IQ goes, let me give an anecdote. I'm surrounded in my profession by quite a few people with "higher IQs" than I, I'm quite certain. They rarely see the big picture as well as I do, or perhaps they aren't interested in it. Still, others, and studies have shown this, are severely lacking in critical thinking due to their primal brains and possibly upbringing not overcoming the IQ. Mental discipline is out there, but rare. Reproductive strategy and biology clouds this given your self confidence and physical characteristics too. I can talk about this more, but I'll leave it here for now.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
ilostabet said:
I think creation was perfect, but was corrupted by our Fall (along with the rest of creation, including the 'laws of nature').

I don't think Christianity is incompatible with civilization so I don't have to reconcile it - but from the conversations we've had, I think what we have is different conceptions of what civilizations is, or should be.

So you believe that the currently observable human nature is not its true nature but a byproduct of the fall ?
How do you think man would be if it didn't happen ?

Regarding civilization well I never liked people much, I'm happier the less I see (and need) any.
I don't really have a conception of what it is or should be, I just see what I see.

But this could totally come from growing up in a very "diverse" environment - I would probably have been very different if I was only surrounded by my people all along.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
That is what I believe. I think we would be us, in our physical bodies, but without sin, decay and death.

With regards to technology, I have a very simple proposition, coded in that famous Bible quote: 'you will know them by their fruits'.

What kind of society has modern technology created? And do we see any discernible differences, other than ingrained cultural and genetic ones, in technologically advanced societies?

To me the answer is clear. Wherever modern technology reaches, we see the same types of dysfunction (social, mental, physical) regardless of genetic and cultural aspects.

It could be argued that it's a bunch of external factors making it so that we don't have a pious, orderly, moral, happy, stable and creative society with modern technology. But where there's smoke there's fire. To me this overbearing and worldwide phenomenon of degeneration at every level cannot be untied from the technical means which make it possible. If you believe in the Fall, it's easy to see why such powerful tools will be used for evil more than for good, just like everything else.

Modern technology is Tolkien's Ring - its power too great. The only lasting solution is to destroy it so no one can use it - because we know, even with good intentions, it ends badly - for the ones using it and everyone around them.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Hmm ok, interesting.
I mean it's more or less in the bible, I just don't know many people who take that literally.

Regarding modern technology I think you're throwing the baby with the bathwater a bit.

Living without it is easy, many organizations here allow you to experience this for the summer months.
You basically go live on a farm without tractors or fertilizers and scratch the earth for your subsistence every day.
At first it's cool thinking you're independent, but trust me it grows old rather quick.

I'm trying to do something like this in my garden, last year we had great weather and ate a lot of our own food.
This year the weather was shit and if it had been our only source of food my children would have starved and died.
Which should make anyone think about a change of plans maybe ..

Also have you read ravage by barjavel ? :)
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
On the first point, a lot of people like to pick and choose what they believe. I don't do that. Darwinian evolution is not compatible with the Biblical account, even if we take the language in it poetically (as we should in some cases). Whoever wants to make it so is either fooling himself or others.

As for the other point: as it stands, if a societal breakdown would occur taking out modern technology I would probably not survive. I still live in the city, and the small farm my inlaws have is not even close to self sufficiency (also because we're not there full time). But it is my duty to make it as close as possible to it; to try to make a community that will help itself in times of need. But as it stands, I would probably die or at the very least suffer a lot. I have been preparing myself mentally for that, but only when it happens will I truly know if I am or not.

Equally important, as a rational man I have to separate what is good for me in the immediate, to the larger societal considerations. I am well aware of the difficulties, but in the long run, and on a larger scale, I see either that unplugging or complete submission to the power structure through technology. I mean, it already is at this stage (can you have a job without a smartphone, or participate in society without the internet? very difficult). This is how technology takes over - luxury/extravagance turns necessity. The whole structure is changed underneath your feet - after which you will have a tough choice to make. I already thought of when 5G will be made mandatory and they disable 4G networks - at which point, I will cease to have one and probably flee to the country side. I hope I still have a couple of years to prepare more. Imagine when the implants and mind-connecting to the cloud begin. I really, without a doubt, would rather die free than live like that, because that is no life at all - and believe me, to belong to that system, we will have to concede much more than the privacy and freedom we do now. It will be our own humanity which will be at stake.

I have not read the book, nor have heard about it, but will check it out.

EDIT: after reading the wiki on the book - I know perfectly that a lot of suffering will happen as a result of a loss of modern technology. But 1) suffering already exists and is increasing - both physical (due to illnesses caused by our unnatural lives) and mental (for the same reason, and as never seen before); 2) the longer the system goes on, the more suffering it will cause - either by itself or as a result of its demise. So, all in all, suffering is unavoidable and in my opinion, avoiding suffering is not a particularly good goal in itself. A lot can be learned from it and we wouldn't be human without it. The fact remains, that the longer the system exists, the more suffering it will cause. And in my opinion it is the technocrats who have the burden of proof - society has existed perfectly without it, and for the 200 years we had it, if I am being optimistic, it's a very mixed bag between good and bad. It doesn't look like a good case to me.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
ilostabet said:
can you have a job without a smartphone, or participate in society without the internet?

Internet is certainly a very interesting thing from an evolutionary point of view - it might make you realize you have more in common with other intelligent people of other tribes/races than you might have with most of your own.
I don't like at all where this goes if you take it to its logical conclusion though.
But then I take it from the beginning of your answer that you choose to believe in the bible's creation tale instead of evolution anyway ?

Ravage is not really about suffering, it's more a feel-good book to me, it basically describes what you'd want to happen, with a hero which anybody can (or should) relate to, and a happy ending.
I just don't agree with what happens at the very end but you probably would, that's why I asked if you had read it.
In any case I definitely recommend it to anyone, it's a good book and an easy read, and it will make you question some things in a good way.
Just don't let wikipedia spoil you ;)
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
I don't choose to believe it, I just believe it (I assume you don't choose to believe evolution, but simply do) - I do believe in adaptation, but that is neither original nor exclusive of Darwin and his acolytes.

To my eyes evolution has more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Roosh has a good article on it, but all you have to do is look at the fertility rates of believers in evolution vs the ones of non-believers. If evolution exists, it clearly favors its opponents.

Back to the topic, the technological stranglehold on humanity shouldn't be a concern of only atheists or Christians, but everyone. More than half the problems raised in this forum can be traced back to a technological innovation - not one that went wrong, but one that does exactly what it was intended to do. If one analyses the promises of any revolutionary piece of technology we see how it either failed (like the internet would be this tool that would make ignorance a thing of the past), or succeeded but created associated problems that then must be fixed by further technology and social engineering (like cars, industrial agriculture or the pill).

We've gone beyond the point of technological optimism, in which we think it will bring more benefits than detriments - now we know how these developments will enslave us in ways that make previous tyranny a walk in the park, and yet, we say 'it's inevitable' - well, yeah, with that attitude.

Everyone discusses the implications of new laws or policies (when we know, at the same time, how politics is actually just a show that influences nothing), but not of new technologies, the actual means by which the world is controlled and steered. Everyone decries the power structure and what they promote, but not the technical means that actually allows that power to be wielded. Each one of these technologies were pushed by the same oligarchs everyone complains about - but somehow, their promotion of these things raises no red flags, or everyone thinks we can take it from them and use them for good, instead of thinking that we'll be corrupted into the same social engineering temptation they were.

It's the ultimate elephant in the room, but there's no room anymore, it's just us and the elephant, which has destroyed the furniture, tore down the walls and ceiling.

Side note: it would be nice to change the name of this thread because discussing the unabomber is more or less irrelevant, but it's important to discuss the technological nature and implications of modern society.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
if the dissident right existed in the time of the tower of babel, they would oppose the stated objectives of its construction, but wouldn't remove one single brick, thinking the structure could be used to keep people closer to the ground.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
ilostabet said:
I don't choose to believe it, I just believe it (I assume you don't choose to believe evolution, but simply do)

Hmm.

Well there is one thing about science in general : it's not the truth.
And more importantly : it was never the goal.

Look at Newton : you can throw something of a given weight, with a given force in a given direction.
Then pause, fetch the calculator, and you can know where it's gonna land.
Isn't that great ? You can predict the future !
Thank you newton :)

Now is it the truth ?
Well no, we know since that it doesn't hold in all conditions, plus relativity, field equations etc.
However that's not the point, truth is not the point - usefulness is.
If a theory is useful then you should use it, and accept that at some point it might be replaced by something better - that's the whole idea of science.

So basically evolution just seems to me to be the best explanation I came across for what I witness.
But it's not about truth, or belief, or faith - science is a tool, not a religion !

It might be a digression so sorry if you don't like it, but it is an important point I wanted to make several times already (not to you in particular).

Now the second point I wanted to make is this :
Regarding Roosh's article I read it the first time you linked it IIRC, and some good points were made.
However it's based on the false premise that evolution still occurs to this day.

Which is of course not the case - for evolution to occur you need environmental pressure.
However everybody and anybody has been reproducing for quite some time already.
We could discuss when exactly this started of course, but it's a fact.

And as you said it's even worse than that, since many "modern" countries have various combinations of social help and immigration which favors more offsprings from the less desirable members of the society.
This is like a man-made evolution, in reverse.

That's maybe some content for the satanic inversion thread .. I don't know.
I mean catholicism in the west also encourages having as many children as you can, basically pushing r-selection on K-selected people.
And don't even get me started on the christians I know who did not abort their foetus who had down syndrome because "all life is sacred", otherwise .. well you'll just make some guy a couple of countries away very unhappy over the internet ;)
It wouldn't be the end of the world either, but well ..
 
Top