Post: #1

I have been reading about him and he brings up a lot of valid points in his writings, I don't think he's as crazy as the media made him out to be.

http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt
http://kk.org/thetechnium/2009/02/the-unabomber-w/

Post: #2

Pre-internet we had to rely on academics going berserk to tell us something is wrong with society. Today, anyone can access the info that used to be the dominion of smart people.

That being said, he's probably onto something.

Post: #3

The Unabomber blew innocent people up with mail bombs.

Post: #4

The Amish have many of the same core beliefs.

Any nut can make sense some of the time. You could ask was the nutjob who knifed his roommates and then shot a couple chicks in Santa Barbara right? No, of course not. Did he have a few valid points in his manifesto? Sure.

Careful where you get your philosophy, a few valid points might lead you down a bad path.

Post: #5

(08-25-2014 05:37 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  The Unabomber blew innocent people up with mail bombs.

There are no innocent people.

Post: #6

(10-03-2014 11:35 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 05:37 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  The Unabomber blew innocent people up with mail bombs.

There are no innocent people.

You don't honestly believe that, do you?

Post: #7

He was definitely right about a lot, regardless of what he did after writing his manifesto. From wiki:

Quote:In his opening and closing sections, Kaczynski addresses Leftism as a movement and analyzes the psychology of leftists, arguing that they are "True Believers in Eric Hoffer's sense" who participate in powerful social movements to compensate for their insecurity and feelings of inferiority:

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 advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. ... 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-class families.

Edit: Roosh wrote an article about him here.

Post: #8

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.

Post: #9

He was a typical dumb smartguy, following arguments robotically to their logical conclusions, playing God.

I would rather go down with the ship than be the guy sending bombs to people I don't know, not caring about who gets killed unintentionally, righteous in my syllogisms.

Most of us understand this instinctively.

You're stuck in your head, Ted, that's it, breathe, you have a gut down there that needs listening to as well.

Feel the tension in your shoulders.

Here, sniff this lavender pillow.

The deep tissue therapist is on her way.

Post: #10

(08-10-2016 10:22 AM)defguy Wrote:  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.

What you're getting at is funny ... he needed the technology he so protested against to get people the wake the fuck up

What irony.

Post: #11

(08-10-2016 10:49 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  He was a typical dumb smartguy, following arguments robotically to their logical conclusions, playing God.

I would rather go down with the ship than be the guy sending bombs to people I don't know, not caring about who gets killed unintentionally, righteous in my syllogisms.

Most of us understand this instinctively.

You're stuck in your head, Ted, that's it, breathe, you have a gut down there that needs listening to as well.

Feel the tension in your shoulders.

Here, sniff this lavender pillow.

The deep tissue therapist is on her way.

Weird but funny, db

I'm coming to the end of a period where I even bother "telling" people, apart from those I love or know me very well, any of these things that we realize and talk about at high levels.

Whether it's SJW crap to wade through or those that never thought outside the box of why the modern age has huge huge problems, after this election I'm not even bothering with these deluded idiots. I'll just smile, move on and know that they are clueless drones. It's not even worth giving them any entertainment, because that's what they are looking for, another right with reality.

What's funny is that along the way I thought I had a chance to "make a difference (queue violin solo)." You can't with the close minded or mentally challenged.

Post: #12

Yeah. One of life's sad lessons. A closed mind can be as solid as a table or a wall.

Post: #13

Great doc about him and his theories.

Post: #14

Ironically, one of his victims "David Gelernter" wrote an interesting book opposed to the liberalization of America.

David Gelernter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gelernter

America-Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-Lite

Post: #15

(10-03-2014 11:35 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 05:37 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  The Unabomber blew innocent people up with mail bombs.

There are no innocent people.

Maybe not, but most people don't deserve to be blown up with mail bombs.

Post: #16

(08-10-2016 10:49 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  He was a typical dumb smartguy, following arguments robotically to their logical conclusions, playing God.

That is a good way of putting it. I have noticed that a lot of mass/serial killer types seem to fall into that pattern. They are often very perceptive and intelligent, so they notice aspects to society that most people miss. What they get wrong however is that for whatever reason they have a laser beam focus on the negative aspects. They miss both positive aspects to things as well as the emotional maturity to focus on managing the negativity that they let into their own lives.

Just look at the whole Elliot Roger thing. He correctly perceived how fucked up male-female relations are in the US(exponentially more so in the Yuppie CA area he lived in )....but most of us when we got that frustrated would, rather than self destruct, use that energy to do something like go visit some "sauna clubs" in Germany or channel that energy into the gym and at least getting something.

Post: #17

I think he was right in some ways, though his radical way of going about trying to change this was insane. Essentially his belief seems to be that humans were best off before civilization in a state of natural order and that technology and civilization has destroyed this.

I recommend checking out John Zerzan's philosophy - it honestly fits in a with a lot with the "red pill" worldview, in the sense that modernity has distorted nature in many ways, such as creating a society in which men are punished just for being men, and in which the natural state of relationships and the family unit has been distorted by supplementing the male provider with a welfare state.

In all honesty the worldview seems more similar to Jack Donovan than to typical "far leftists", and in some ways ties in even with conservatism of the more "romanticist" variety, versus the neoconservative variety.

Post: #18

Well, it looks like ole Ted is going to be validated. He was a man before the times, talk about the smartest guy in the room

Netflix have a series called Manhunt about Kaczynski

Post: #19

Look up Derrick Jensen. He's basically the unabomber without having actually followed through on his extremist rhetoric. The worst part about Jensen is he goes around the college circuit advocating people blow up dams and cell phone towers. He also published a children's book advocating this form of ecoterrorism.





You have to understand that extremism leads to strange bedfellows. At some point extreme left and right meet in the middle as far as both sides harboring a strong hatred of the status quo. What they hate may be different, but it's still hate.

When hate meets a desire for personal glory, that's when you wind up with Unabomber or Travis Bickle types.

It's important for anyone on the red pill spectrum to be careful not to lose yourself in a cycle of hatred because you'll wind up hurting people (including yourself).

Post: #20

No, he was not right. He sent bombs to college campuses and harmed student and faculty members who had nothing to do with his rants.

The sad part about the Unabomber is that had he just published his treatise without bombing people, he could have possibly made an impact. He had/has a formidable intellect and wasted it making bombs and killing people.

Post: #21

Quote:As an undergraduate at Harvard, Kaczynski was a research subject in an ethically questionable experiment conducted by psychology professor Henry Murray, which some analysts have claimed influenced Kaczynski's later actions.

(from Wikipedia)

Quote:...
The overall program was under the control of the late Sidney Gottlieb, head of the CIA’s technical services division. Just as Harvard students were fed doses of LSD, psilocybin and other potions, so too were prisoners and many unwitting guinea pigs.
...
Sometimes the results were disastrous. A dram of LSD fed by Gottlieb himself to an unwitting U.S. army officer, Frank Olson, plunged Olson into escalating psychotic episodes, which culminated in Olson’s fatal descent from an upper window in the Statler-Hilton in New York. Gottlieb was the object of a lawsuit not only by Olson’s children but also by the sister of another man, Stanley Milton Glickman, whose life had disintegrated into psychosis after being unwittingly given a dose of LSD by Gottlieb.
...

(from https://www.counterpunch.org/1999/07/15/...e-cia-lsd/)

Post: #22

(10-05-2017 11:23 AM)Fortis Wrote:  No, he was not right. He sent bombs to college campuses and harmed student and faculty members who had nothing to do with his rants.

The sad part about the Unabomber is that had he just published his treatise without bombing people, he could have possibly made an impact. He had/has a formidable intellect and wasted it making bombs and killing people.

No he couldn't have. There are plenty of people out there with anti-tech talking points who are being ignored.

He was a terrorist, and was terrorizing anyone connected to tech companies and colleges where tech research was being done.

It's not right, that is clear. As a strategy though, there wouldn't even be this thread if all he did was write articles.

Still not a great strategy for a lone terrorist. If he had a group of fellow eco-warriors spread out over the country secretly attacking, it might have made more sense tactically if not morally.

If you have ever engaged in political activism, you know how hard it is to get anything done just with words. The Unabomber's campaign is like the dark temptation for every activist.

We know we are ineffectual as we are, so do we keep our morals and lose, or go rogue and become more effective?

I was involved in a humanitarian group trying peacefully to send aid to a country that was being decimated and denied access to weapons to defend itself. We tried everything we could think of, and I remember the lot of us sitting there dejectedly in a room and one member says, so what do we do now? Start running guns over there?

We all looked at each other and knew our campaign was over. Ted Kaczynski wasn't just an example of the lone nut. He is an archetype of anyone who wants to get something done taking the dark option.

Post: #23

(10-05-2017 11:23 AM)Fortis Wrote:  No, he was not right. He sent bombs to college campuses and harmed student and faculty members who had nothing to do with his rants.

The sad part about the Unabomber is that had he just published his treatise without bombing people, he could have possibly made an impact. He had/has a formidable intellect and wasted it making bombs and killing people.

His hatred of academia stems from the traumas he incurred as a 17yo Harvard freshman MK-Ultra subject. Not to justify his bombings, but his background goes a long way towards explaining his actions.

Post: #24

I agree with the message not the method

Post: #25

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."

I don't offer this paraphrased quote to discourage critical examination of his message. Indeed, a lot of his predictions about society's growing dependence on technology and resultant decadence/detachment have come to pass, but as other posters have said above, when the final solution to the technological question is send bombs to academics, lobbyists, and in some cases, civilians with no apparent connection to the technocracy you claim is destroying society, the truth of your methodology and by extension, your message must be called into question.

The Unabomber is a perfect example of the dangers of extremism and pitfalls inherent to the narcissism of intellectuals (whom he claimed were killing society, while himself killing members of society). He alone knew what needed to be done. He alone could propagate the message to the masses. In my opinion it is nothing short of hubris of the highest order akin to guys like Manson and McVeigh, who have some occasionally profound musings on the world buried under the weight of their brazenly anti-social and anti-societal actions.

All that said, the dude somehow got a book published last year (it's called Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How, widely available on the internet for free) and it's a pretty interesting, albeit outrageously verbose read. I sort of jumped around because it's so fucking tedious, but it's quite clear this guy goes full retard in his analysis of the world. The tech problem can be solved quite easily on an individual level. Turn phone off. Bang hot wife. Don't let kids use Facebook. Teach the importance of society.

TLDR
The Unabomber is not right.