Post: #26

(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

Post: #27

(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.

Post: #28

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

Post: #29

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.

Post: #30

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?

Post: #31

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?

Post: #32

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.

Post: #33

(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.

Post: #34

There is a very good movie/documentary called "The Net; The Unabomber, Lsd and the internet" that puts it all that into perspective.

Post: #35

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.

Post: #36

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.

Post: #37

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.

Post: #38

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

Post: #39

You can write him a letter-

Theodore John Kaczynski
Reg: 04475-046
US Penitentiary Max
PO Box 8500
Florence, CO 81226-8500

Post: #40

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.

Post: #41

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.

Post: #42

(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.

Post: #43

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]

Post: #44

(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.

Post: #45

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.

Post: #46

Post: #47

https://youtu.be/wr5M6oEx2j4

Great documentary about his intersection with silicone valley and the fathers of the internet. Little slow but very insightful.