/lit/ - Literature

He's right about basically fucking everything. Like everything. It's just that it has little to do with anthraxing 5 random people for no reason. Except I guess getting his message heard? But even then, better ways.

He's literally autistic. But also mostly correct.

>>8376308
>at random

they were captains of industry

>>8376295
He couldve just written a fictional account of what he was planning to do, added in the manifesto, added some mayh to impress the humanities people even more, and wouldve had a classic in his hands. Instead he goes to hell

>>8376308
>anthrax
>ted not a plagiarist
bro

>>8376295
After I read up about him, I started feeling irked about how people always referred to him as a serial killer but never as a terrorist. Sure he was a bit messed up in the head, but his killings weren't done out of pure sadism. He had a clear sociopolitical purpose.

>>8376295
I've read like a tiny excerpt from it but it was pretty shitty
Just making really obvious points

>>8376350

You are actually right, he could have gone down in history as a crazy but insightful writer, but instead he undermined his own work by making people dismiss it altogether bc of its "history".

>>8376295
The generic ramblings of a spoiled, autistic, disillusioned manchild who thinks he's a special snowflake who earnestly believes the past was better in everything and that we live on the darkest times of history.
Honestly, i could say more, but i stopped reading when he started talking shit about feminism.
If i can say anything good about the man, he's still miles above the folks at Fox and CBS. Dude should just have found a hobby and occupied himself.

Pretty much exactly right in his political takedowns, the sadomasochism of the modern political "left" in particular, while a bit more muddled in his ideological anarchoprimitivism.
The reasons for the attacks, and his subsequent fame, mostly seems to come down to a breakdown from having his cottage retreat threatened at that.

>>8376479
>but i stopped reading when he started talking shit about feminism.
made me chuckle.

>>8376479
Wew you almost had me with this one, I had half a response typed up. Pretty good bait man

>>8376295
Pretty much this >>8376308 His worldview and predictions were pretty spot on, he just handled the realization like a fucking autist.

>>8376479
>i stopped reading when he started talking shit about feminism
You were doing so well

He's a genius but his methods were wrong.

>>8376379
>>8376360
No one would have read his manifesto if he hadn't committed those crimes.

There have probably been thousands of people just like him over the years, living and dying in obscurity because no one cared.

>>8376938
Sure, but the method he chose clearly didn't work either. It turns out terrorizing people doesn't make them want to listen to you.

So, he was right about the problems he saw in society, but no more effective in affecting change than any random bozo who knows a bad idea when he sees one.

>>8377038
It will gain traction with edge lords the way Mein Kapf and My Twitsed World has though.

>>8377038
I'd say he got his manifesto as much publicity as a thing like that can possibly get.

>>8377048
Exactly the wrong people to bring into your movement. Anyone who would support Kaczynzski's manifesto outright today would be laughed off as an edgy soon-to-be mental patient.

>>8377050
Not all publicity is good publicity. He poisoned the well, and now anyone who advocates the same issues has to watch what they say to avoid association with him.

Was he an extremist or did he just understand that it's impossible to change society radically without violence?

>>8377056
>did he just understand that it's impossible to change society radically without violence
If he did, he did an extremely shit job branding it. He made himself the most hated man in America, not a savior of the revolutionary vanguard.

Will autistics like him ever realize that your tone is as important as your message? That psychology is as important as strategy?

>>8376295
Interesting, though he has some vague reasoning in a few areas, and some of his stronger points suffer for being linked to his weaker ones.

His other essays are pretty neat reads, though. Particularly where he talks about why he thinks The System is doomed to fail, how The System tricks those in it into correcting its problems inder the guise of rebelling against it, and why he thinks anarcoprimitivist claims that primitive lifestyles are all smiles are full of shit.

>>8376479
>special snowflake
the irony

>>8376515
Thank you for this nataliapost, have one in return.

>>8376295
>all these people saying he undermined his message by sending bombs

How many of you would recognize his name 20 years after the fact if he hadn't sent those bombs? Someone like John Zerzan doesn't have nearly the name recognition even though he's been making similar arguments for decades.

K didn't expect that everyone in America would immediately come around to his position if only they were exposed to it, and he realized that "terrorist" is a politically-charged and reversible label.

Before he was imprisoned, Nelson Mandela helped to orchestrate dozens of bombings of military bases, power plants, etc. across South Africa. I'm not drawing a moral equivalence between him and the Unabomber, but pointing out that violence can be an effective way of spreading your message, and that resorting to violence does not necessarily require giving up the "moral high ground" in the long run.

>>8377297
Nelson Mandela had the advantage of advocating for what amounted to a 90% majority. Even while he was branded a terrorist, you can imagine that many South African blacks didn't agree.

Even "Islamic terrorists" today have "a people" from which they can hope to gather sympathizers.

The Unabomber made himself famous, yes, but he also made his message infamous. Like I said, he poisoned the well. His actions didn't successfully draw supporters to his cause, and in fact probably pushed would-be sympathizers away. This is a net negative, as opposed to net neutral (which would probably have been the result of unremarkable, but peaceful advocacy).

>>8376479
more like the ramblings of a traumatised CIA torture victim famalam

>>8377297
>. I'm not drawing a moral equivalence between him and the Unabomber,
You shouldn't, Teddy wasn't a warcriminal

>>8377056

Just vote, bro! You can change everything! Trump! Not establishment! MAGA!

>>8377297
muh propaganda of the deed

>>8376295
>>8376295
>>8376295
>>8376295


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLqrVCi3l6E

>>8377552
I wonder if Ted would back Trump? He would likely deride him as a downright moron, but would probably love to see someone put into office that has a decent chance to fuck up the system via their ineptitude.

>>8376295
I think that he made some incredibly sharp observations and was generally on the right track when thinking about humanity's future. The bombings I'm not too sure about. He was probably feeling rather desperate and isolated as others have said and god knows how much the CIA systematically breaking your mind effects your ability to make reasonable decisions.

I'm personally very concerned about the future of the environment in my country and local region in particular but my local 'Green' party who I could vote for to represent these views are more concerned with making weed legal and letting people use whatever bathrooms they want in public than actually solving any real problems.

Is it really only possible to sympathise with the man if you're a borderline schizophrenic? The way I see it you'd have to be insane not to agree with most of what he says.

>>8376295
it's what happens when you send 16yos to harvard

they can't cope socially and become antisocial

>>8377615
if the "system" was so fragile that a retarded president would be able to mess it up you'd think it would have happened already, most recently with Bush. i hope Trump wins just to see what happens but its too optimistic to think he'd have any real impact

>>8377615

>the president can do anything

Ted is smarter than that.

There was a guy who wrote Kaczynski pretending to be a child seeking for advice. He wrote other famous criminals, too. Can't remember where I found it, unfortunately.

Does someone have the link?

>>8377670
I remember that. Kaczynski's response is pretty much exactly what you'd expect from a humanitarian autist. He seems like a very nice and civil man from what I've seen of his letters.

>>8376295
Thanks to technology the world is becoming better. Less wars, less crimes, better living standards, improved health, IQ levels rising, less poverty, and, if we hopefully soon apply latest technologies, the environment will improve, too.

>>8377678

Yeah, if you'd judge him only by his letters, you'd think he's a kind uncle living somewhere distant.

I'd still like the link though. Google gives me nothing but ordinary letters from killers/criminals.

>>8377678
>>8377690

nevermind, I got it! Some other great and funny responses in there, too

http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/22909174.html

>>8377679
lol

>>8376295
All the very valid points. Except that his solution is shit-tier. But again, nobody offered a better idea over all the years that anarchistic ideas were out there. So yes, he's Cassandra.

>>8377679
Found the sane person. There's always one.

-serious question-
Do anarchists really think they are fighting oligarchism?

>>8377802
>world is becoming better
>sane
I don't know about where you live but my country is determined to overpopulate itself despite our environmental resources already being strained beyond their limits. Oh no, but it's okay, we have the 'latest technologies.'

No amount of efficient irrigation is going to make Australia's water use sustainable at this point. We need less of everything, but at the same time our government thinks it's reasonable to aim to damn near double our population in the next 50 years.

>>8377038
>affecting
Effecting

>>8377048
Nobody who lauds My Twisted World is going to find the Unabomber manifesto an easy enough read. MTW is in a large part appreciated because of its appeal to people with a very low reading age.

I don't say the same thing about Mein Kampf only because certain people at the time who were intelligent got whipped up into a frenzy (Heidegger is an obvious example), but you could say something very similar. Hitler was a poor artist and a worse writer.

>>8377814
>No amount of efficient irrigation is going to make Australia's water use sustainable at this point.
Got any sources about this to hand?

>>8377814
I was thinking globally and in long terms. There are setbacks, there will always shitty places to live, there will be wars, psychopaths on killing sprees, and whatever disasters - but I truly believe that the general direction is up

>>8377679
The environment is getting (much, much) worse, crime has been dropping for centuries and has nothing to do with technology, IQ levels are declining, wars have the potential to be far more destructive than before, and we're heading towards Malthusian catastrophe due to the third world's fertility rates.

You're a retard.

>>8377901
Do you think the human race will still exist in 3000 years?

>>8377877
>Got any sources about this to hand?
No, I studied it for 6 months in high school though.

The current situation is that despite improvements being made throughout the Murray Darling Basin area (Very big and important part of Australia's agricultural industry) there isn't enough water to give farmers all that they want while at the same time keeping enough aside to maintain the river-system's health.

As improvements keep coming along there will be more and more water to distribute between the two but that's assuming that the rainfall and river flows remain constant, which any Australian can guarantee you they won't. Over the past few years we've actually been experiencing exceptionally good annual rainfall. So good that it was considered a freak event of nature when it started.

But the thing about the climate down here is that it works in cycles. What we're experiencing right now is known as a La Nina, a cool cycle on our end of the Pacific. This is good for agriculture. In the coming years it'll be our turn to deal with the El Nino, the dry cycle. This is a rougher period but not cataclysmic by any means.

What's scary is the idea of Australia being hit with a significant drought, as happened in 2000, at the same time as an El Nino. This doubling up of dryness would significantly limit the amount of water available in the Basin and it can be expected that in this circumstance the river and the farmers would suffer greatly. The improved irrigation measures certainly help, but they're only supplementary. When we have water it's good, it helps us get more out of it. But if there isn't enough water there simply isn't enough. And it seems like there is a fair chance that this could happen within the next few years.

>>8377901
>general direction is up
I wouldn't be that surprised if the first world largely begins to collapse. We'll either overpopulate until we explode or regress due to 'coffin-shaped' population demographics (google it).

>>8377905
>crime has been dropping for centuries and has nothing to do with technology
It has to do with changes in society
And these are largely imposed by changes in technology
So no, you are a retard.

>>8377905
>we're heading towards Malthusian catastrophe due to the third world's fertility rates.
That's alright

>>8377297
>. I'm not drawing a moral equivalence between him and the Unabomber,
You shouldn't, Teddy wasn't a nigger

>>8377927
whitey and bantu fuck off from khoi-san lands

>>8377907
yes, as long as not some comet hits our planet and we are not able to prevent it, or have some outpost in space

>>8377909
yes, maybe our or a future generation will experience some horrible times, but if you think in a few 100 year terms, I think it's getting better

>>8377913
>It has to do with changes in society, caused by changes in technology
lmao, fantastic argument, that's not at all a meaningless sweeping statement which you can't possibly prove.

Crime rates in the West have been dropping essentially for as long as we have have the data to know, and this is due to the fact that criminals are imprisoned and executed, which historically has lowered their fertility compared to the population at large, and consequently the frequency of their genes, being that criminal behaviour is strongly heritable.

>>8377938
Ah I see, you fell for the star trek meme. This explains the optimism.

>>8377942
that's because in 100 years retards like you will have been eliminated from the genepool for being too autistic to have sex with a woman

>>8377946
Nah, I rather read some nasa blog than watch those silly actors talking cliche. To be honest, I don't think there will be a space colony or whatever sci-fi fantasy in the next few 100 years. Even on the ISS men will be replaced by robots sooner or later. They are cheaper and better. I just thought to mention it as one possibility.

The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

>>8377942

>in a few 100 year terms, I think it's getting better

Yeah, by then the human race will be extinct and the world will be able to just chill again

>>8377942
>a few 100 year terms
I don't know about that. The next ~50 years if you ask me will be a crisis point in the future of humanity and depending on how it's handled it could make or break us, potentially for good.

In the immediate future we're going to have to simultaneously deal with the an ageing populations for the first time in history and the population time-bomb that is an Africa with a reduced death rate clawing its way into 2nd world status.

If we don't enforce population control measures across the whole world I suspect that our future will be one of commieblock housing as far as the eye can see, together with the standard of living that implies.

>>8377954
Glad at least some of us can agree on this
>muh economic growth
Forget baneposting, GDP is the true eternal meme

>>8377948
fuuuuvcvvvkvkvkvkkk

>>8377954
Ah yes, the 14 words. I recite them to myself every morning

>>8377522
>traumatised CIA torture
what

Also worth remembering that he promised to stop the bombings if his manifesto was published, and the only reason they caught him was because his brother ratted him out

>>8377971
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

The CIA decided to mentally break a few of America's best and brightest for the sake of testing how hard they could mindfuck intelligent people into getting the reaction they wanted.

Kacynzski was one of the unlucky few who went through this program. It sounds like it was pretty traumatising. Trained psychologists tearing you down to the base of your being and making you feel awful for the sake of their experiments. He was already supposed to be quite odd going into college but this stuff almost certainly made a more neurotic man out of him.

>>8377942
>durr just kick the can down the road bruv

I know you're a NEET that has like 0% chance of breeding but not all of us are so

>>8377988
Yep, IIRC he wrote in his diary that it made him almost suicidal and gave him an identity crisis

>>8377695

Ted is great. I want to write him a letter after reading his manifesto so I don't ask anything already covered.

I also plan on sending him some extra stamps so he can do whatever with then since I remember in a letter to someone he mentioned they were a bit difficult to get for him.

>>8377956

Psychologically, yes. I think that would've come eventually though no matter what.

I was a technology major in college. A lot of luddite types take his writing very seriously and quote it a lot.

Kind of makes you want to send him a letter and say, "Hey uh...you know if you just published your manifesto academically and didn't kill all those people, you'd probably be taken way more seriously."

Kind of doubt he'd be like, "Oh really? Man...looks like i got egg on my face huh?" he'd probably just throw shit at you and start masturbating.

>>8378022
>published your manifesto academically
He did publish a paper in college that was incredibly similar to his manifesto. That's how they knew it was him behind the bombings. They recognized the same points and writing style in the pieces.

>>8378022
>I was a technology major in college
How is it like being a 5'6 ugly, balding, goblin with zero muscle mass or appeal to women?

>>8377964
The only countries with high birthrates are Africa and the Middle East. If the first world simply does not continue its absurd policy of letting anyone in that lands on its shores, then it can continue to thrive while the third world breeds itself into a Malthusian trap.
Maybe Nigeria will be commieblocks as far as the eye can see, but Europe and the anglosphere don't need to be.

>>8378044
I'm 6'0, have all my hair, only about 20 lbs overweight, and banged probably around 50 girl when i was in college.

I became a tech major because I was a massive fuckup and alcoholic, and spent most of my college time partying.

>>8378032
no, his brother turned him in you raging homosexual

>>8377991
ok, and what it exactly does this have to do with my theory of the future?
If you have a better argument, enlighten us, but don't judge someone's opinion because of his sex life. That's plain retarded.

>>8378062
>his brother turned him in you raging homosexual
His sister-in-law thought the manifesto sounded familiar and raised the issue with his brother. His brother agreed and reluctantly showed it to a lawyer (think he was a lawyer) who started digging around and found Ted's old academic paper. I remember seeing an interview with the guy. He said something like 'I remember looking up from the papers and not being able to tell which one I had just been reading.'

>>8378057
>Maybe Nigeria will be commieblocks as far as the eye can see, but Europe and the anglosphere don't need to be
Key word there being 'need.' Of course Europe doesn't 'need' it. Nobody does. That isn't enough to stop it from happening. Europe has taken in a very large number of immigrants over the past few years not even counting the huge intake caused by the recent crisis or whatever you want to call it and this trend is only showing a few signs of stopping. Unless alt-right groups seize control of significant parts of Europe I don't see immigration ending.

Everyone knows how painful it will be to deal with a population with more people in its older generations than the younger ones and is trying to hold it off for as long as possible. It seems to me like it's inevitable and only going to get worse the longer we hold it off so we might as well bear the strain now and set ourselves up for the future rather than keep throwing band-aids on this issue until humanity is ready to explode.

>>8378082
But is it even possible today to make such a large scale decision? All I see are riots and chaos breaking out over a decision like this. Technology has given voice to too many people and has taken away any possibility of rational discourse.

>>8378082
Removing a few millions of unwanted elements from the country proved itself to be very much possible. So immigrants aren't that much of a problem.

>>8378097
>But is it even possible today to make such a large scale decision?
China can do it. Everywhere else it'd be fucking murder to get done but I still see it as doable.

I think that the key would be finding a way to convince people it's necessary. Doing it would be simple.

If the pope could be convinced I think that that alone would work wonders in Africa. The Catholic Church's 'abstinence' bullshit is incredibly harmful and they know it doesn't work, just they see the future as a numbers game and think that an Africa with 4.5 billion people and 1.5 billion Christians is more desirable than an Africa with 2 billion people and 400 million Christians. (I don't know actual statistics off the top of my head)

Islam and the Middle-East would be harder. Iran's old secular government was taking steps towards lowering their birthrate but then they got CIAd and now the guys in charge demand bigger families because Allah needs more loyal soldiers. Talking them down would be hellish.

Afghanistan has a fucked birth rate but that's because the country's so dangerous. Improving infrastructure and support networks together with not actively fucking stable countries for the sake of foreign interests would also go a long way. Stable and wealthy countries don't breed like nymphomaniac rats.

I think that what would really give this a shot at working is giving people an idea that it's a uniting and fair cause. My first idea for this is 'One child per parent.' Each person on the planet is entitled to one child. This means each couple gets two. You can sell your right to the government for cash or something, or you can give it to someone, sell it to someone, auction it off, whatever.

Obviously this would be exploitable as hell but I think it's a start. Something like this if implemented perfectly (impossible I know) would keep the human populations from ever increasing and even slowly decrease them. The problem is how long it would take.

>>8378110
elaborate

>>8378118
>elaborate
Hitler and da joos, man. Even killing is not necessary: it's well known that nazis originally planned to expel the jews to wherever (see "Eichmann in Jerusalem"), and only the financial problems due to war made them resort to mass killing. I'm sure that current Europe, being rich, would be able to ship its illegal migrants to ME, Africa or wherever if it had the political will.

>>8378126
>moving people around
That would help Europe if it could be pulled off (enjoy your WW3 if you try) but even then Europe is one continent. Once Africa is eating itself to survive do you think they won't start looking outwards? And do you think Europeans wouldn't start looking back at them and feeling bad?

>>8377679
>the environment will improve
top kek

>>8377964
>Africa with a reduced death rate clawing its way into 2nd world status
They're gonna go communist?

>>8378140
>They're gonna go communist?
I think the communism meme is pretty much dead. I don't know how their government is going to go on the whole. Maybe Nigeria will finally become strong enough to dominate the continent and start pushing everyone else around to become a superpower or something? Or maybe they'll get Libya'd because the powers that be dislike competition.

>>8378130
>(enjoy your WW3 if you try)
lol, and who will be fighting who? This would be popular in Europe and "not my business" everywhere else that's relevant

as for "boo hoo, poor africans", nobody will care for them once it becomes either us or them, and that time is approaching fast.

>>8377905
>you're a retard
What's the point in ending a post with a snarky remark like this? It just makes you look childish.

>>8378279
To be fair, the other anon made a pretty retarded point. And anon must have wanted to make sure that the tone of his reply was clear.

>>8378183
This. Most young men have at abandoned leftist rhetoric in the Western World anyways.

>>8378306
>leftist rhetoric
The entire planet doesn't operate on America's sliding scale of freedom. Population, immigration and assimilation are very complicated ideas. You can't expect an entire continent to fall onto one side or the other.

>>8377994
>he had thoughts of wanting ro become a woman, and scheduled an appointment to talk to a doctor about the possibility of gender reassignment (secretly for sexual gratification, rather than emotional), but as he sat in the waiting room he realized how insane that was, and made up an excuse for seeing the doctor on the fly

Man, what is it with victims of the government's psychiatric experiments suddenly wanting to be girls?

>>8378454
Perhaps it's a drastic identity crisis brought in from stress. Desiring to escape so much that you think perhaps you can create a new life as a drastically different person: via a different gender.

I donno. I thought the whole Bradley/Chelsea Manning thing was suspicious when it happened shortly after he got absolutely fucked.

>>8378343
I'm talking about a general paradigm shift happening wherein leftist self hatred is being replaced by crass conservatism. SD, FN, etc gain in polls every month.
Both are anti intellectual, but I'm behind the "right". Neo-leftism has become more damaging on a geopolitical scale than neo-cons were in the early 2000s.

>>8378343
People in Europe generally have much more conformity than in USA. Right now the norm is compassion and tolerance, and any other view will generally get you shunned. But if (when) the norm turns, you will be surprised at how unanimously people would agree with the "inhumane", "intolerant" or outright fascistic practices.

>>8378555
Many European countries have a very strong base for leftist (social democrat) politics, though. It might be a bit hard to turn the norm in those places.

Not saying it can't happen, but at least around here the neo-nationalists aren't at their best anymore - their rise has stopped. They got a bunch of protest votes (a lot of them) but currently they have little momentum, the more extreme neo-nazi etc camps are also dying/getting smaller and smaller. The neo-nationalist movement might die out, or maybe it will thrive; there is no definite "when rather than if", though. It is very much an "if" it will ever thrive in every European country

One big possible problem for the populist right: again here, they're teaming up with the "traditional (bourgeoisie) right" when they have to. So they also get hit by a backlash when cuts to welfare, neoliberal policy changes etc don't please the working class (or even middle class).

The young men don't have much reason to prefer the populists when the populists can't sell anything but "m-muh national security" and "l-look at those commies summoning immigrants here"; it starts to seem like a goddamn distraction when the same populists are making cuts to welfare, forcing students to take more loans, healthcare, selling government-owned business even when there is no reason to, etc.
Basically: the populists fail the moment they need to do actual politics and can't do it alone. They can't team up with the egalitarian left for working class-friendly politics and teaming up with the right doesn't really work for their voters. They lose their protesting edge if they need to lean on other parties. They ARE great when they're building a following, but so far they're not so great at keeping it going.

>>8378651
So basically the only viable nationalists are left nationalists, nazis? Indeed. The day when nationalism goes left again will be the beginning of the fire. Especially paired with an economic crisis of any kind.

>>8378661
Most moderates have proposed a new "Alt-left" which would be run of the mill leftism with strong anti-immigration policies. Nationalism is far too alienating for the cosmopolitan and international classes, both of which hold a great deal of sway both in policy making but also the national psyche.

>>8378732
>cosmopolitan and international classes
Ah, the new bourgeois. No one will ask them when shit hits the fan; no one ever did.

>>8378732
>with strong anti-immigration policies
Not sure if this is even a good idea. Sure, stricter anti-immigration policies would sell themselves to some voters, but the ones who want truly want "strong anti-immigration" are relatively rare.

If something like Zizeks proposals would be what Europe did, many of those who are "against" current leftism probably wouldn't be anymore. Most people want certain rational control over refugess, not really much more than that.

>>8378772
>the ones who want truly want "strong anti-immigration" are relatively rare

This assumption is a CRUCIAL misstep. Europeans are comfortable with the enormous demographic shifts that have already happened and show signs of increasing exponentially. 25% of French youth are Muslim.

>>8378866
*uncomfortable

Shit

>>8378732
Dumbest thing I've heard. The people most vocally pushing for immigration today aren't going to be the ones ending it tomorrow.

Face it, friendo: your bourgeois leftist parties were at the origin of this mess, experiments like Syriza show that they have no solutions at all, and the only opposition to migratory suicidalism is on the nationalist right.

>>8378917
I'm not leftist you fucking illiterate. I said the best way to halt migration was to masquerade and or justify it behind leftist sanctimonious rhetoric. Unite scared lefties and nationalists who would at least settle for a curb in immigrants flowing over borders even if it meant another leftist/center government.

>>8377430
>Even while he was branded a terrorist, you can image that many South African blacks didn't agree.

Exactly my point senpai. He knew he would find people who sympathized with his message, even if he himself became persona non grata. I suspect that he had little interest in being a leader, and so didn't care so much if would-be sympathizers were pushed away from him, as long as they heard his message. However you're right that he was at a disadvantage that his message was likely to be favorably received by a substantially smaller portion of the population than, say, Mandela's.

Why do you think that BLM chose to highlight the controversial Michael Brown case instead of the far more clean-cut case of Eric Garner? It's because controversy breeds publicity, and they made the calculation that sustained publicity trumps consensus, even at the cost of alienating a substantial portion of the population (e.g. white police officers). Getting your message heard, and getting everyone in the country to take a side on it is far more effective than going door-to-door and writing editorials in the local paper. The Unabomber didn't have anyone else to take up the torch after he went to prison, but the fact that we're still talking about him decades later shows how potent this strategy is.

>>8378032

>if you just published your manifesto academically

He saw universities as a tool of the unjust society he was critiquing, which is why he chose to target them with his bombings in the first place. So I doubt that he had any interest in being taken seriously by academics.

>>8378957
That's already happening. Nationalist parties are hardly calling for an immigration curb to protect the ethnic purity of the nation. They're using acceptable language and attacking immigration based on things like treatment of women by muslims, and their intolerance of homosexuality. They do this because otherwise they would get shut down for hate speech, but even so they get branded as nazis.

>>8378866
But that's not true at all. The most popular party in France among youth is Front National. Nobody is more pissed right now at the destruction of the French nation than the young people who will inherit it.

>>8378964
Nothing about BLM is calculated, it's about as close to a grassroots movement as you can get in modern America.

>>8379019
>nothing about BLM is calculated
Kek, tell that to Soros

If there are French in there, there's an anarcho-royalist movement that's inspired partly by Kaczynski (on par with Jaime Semprun, Georges Bernanos, Proudhon and Charles Maurras)

https://lelysnoir.wordpress.com/

>>8376295
What were his basic beliefs

>>8377552
>>8377615
>>8377650

>>8379089
Society makes you depressed. Kill it with fire.

>>8379089
industrialization and technology are bad, will destroy ecosystem and hurts humans too

his solution? canceling industrialization, going back to pre-indu age

>>8379111
Are we talking like paleo Anarchy or anti industrial libertarian?

>>8379114
Anarcho-primitivism more or less.

>>8379123
Also: combined with "anti-leftist" beliefs, = anti-egalitarianism, I think he had some idea that egalitarianism is a belief of the technological age and thus he doesn't think its compatible with going against it. Going against modern civilization in the number 1 thing for him; he doesn't believe that an egalitarian primitive society could exist.

He isn't that fucking great a thinker, honestly, but his views are logical.

>>8378463
>it happened shortly after he got absolutely fucked.
The way I heard it, Manning went rogue in the first place because s/he was frustrated with the Army for having DADT or something. I mean, she burned the leaked data to a CD labeled "lady gaga," so there was definitely something going on with sexuality at that time. Maybe he thought he was gay before deciding he was a she, I dunno.

>>8378964
>Why do you think that BLM chose to highlight...
BLM isn't an agent that "chooses to highlight" any particular issue. I think some BLM supporters chose to focus on the most controversial incidents because they felt that the low-hanging fruit was already being taken care of by others within that movement.

>the fact that we're still talking about him decades later shows how potent this strategy is.
And yet his ideology has achieved nothing. There is no movement following him. The fact that we are merely talking about him as a curiosity does indeed seem to show how (im)potent his strategy was.

If social change is an orchestra, violence is the gong. Kaczynski tried to write the music and then only bang the gong without finding someone to play all the other parts.

>>8379169
I think there are legit green anarchists who discuss him, but that is one tiny movement.

Still, becoming a curiosity thanks to his violence =/= good strategy. There are people talking about serial killers etc all the time, no matter how crazy they were.

>>8379169
I agree he wasn't successful at amassing a following, but I don't think it was ever his intention to be the one effecting social change. Rather, I think he fashioned himself as a Karl Marx laying the theoretical foundations for future movements to be led by others. The difference is that Marx was already an established intellectual and had no difficulty getting his ideas heard; as a Montana hermit, Kaczynski knew that he would be ignored unless he did something drastic.

>His ideology has achieved nothing. There is no movement following him.

True, but there's no guarantee that wouldn't be the case if he had promoted it through more legitimate means. Sometimes ideas just don't stick. Yes, if he had used legitimate means, he wouldn't have hurt anybody, but if you were a world-renowned professor who received an unsolicited manifesto railing against civilization, how seriously do you think you would take it?

>>8377872
>Not knowing effect is used as a noun whilst affect is used as a verb.

>>8379344
See my (many) above posts. His violence wasn't just a wrong choice for vague moral reasons, but also from the perspective of the ideology. He poisoned the well, putting his ideas in an intellectual hole that will take longer to dig out of than starting a properly organized movement from scratch would have.

If Ted Kaczynski had never existed, we would actually be closer to achieving his "dream" today, because we would be starting from zero rather than from a negative.

And as others have pointed out ITT, it's not as though he was some genius coming up with revolutionary, utterly unique ideas. The idea that capitalism and technology have hurt humanity did not originate with him, but he did a lot to set those ideas back. If he hadn't done anything at all (or had done something with no impact, like writing letters as you describe), it's possible that others unfamiliar with him would've been more successful in promoting the same ideas he had.

>>8379351
I thought that was the case when I wrote it, but it actually turns out I was wrong. "Affect change" would mean to cause something to happen to change itself, while in "effect change" the word "effect" apparently takes on a meaning unique to that fixed phrase.

Maybe it's a bit like how the word "well" is an adverb while "good" is an adjective, except when someone asks "how are you?" in which case you answer grammatically "I am well" as opposed to "I am good."

>>8376507
>>8376515
>>8376551
>>8377265
When did /lit/ become inundated with alt-right children?

>>>/pol/ is that way

>>8379396
I think that people were commenting on how the post seemed like obvious bait

>>8376295
He should have read more Pynchon.

>>8378979
>branded as nazis
Not saying I agree with that but every time the populist parties try to bring up gay or women's rights it's very clear that they aren't suddenly born again liberals who just dislike immigration. A few, like pym fortun, were legit as far as I know but it generally looks really fake

>>8379429
Aside from the feminism bit that post was 100% spot on. At least read a respectable anprim like Adam Lanza

>>8376479
>who thinks he's a special snowflake who earnestly believes the past was better in everything

He pretty much broke off ties with Zerzan because he said Zerzan refused to admit that primitive society wasn't some magical flawless paradise, and that perpetuating that notion/ignoring anything challenging those views was intellectually dishonest.

He thinks primitive society will be a hard life without a doubt, but one more fulfilling and able to meet man's drives than modern society's cradle-to-grave, cog-in-the-machine rat race.

>>8377430
>>Nelson Mandela had the advantage of advocating for what amounted to a 90% majority. Even while he was branded a terrorist, you can imagine that many South African blacks didn't agree.
>
>Even "Islamic terrorists" today have "a people" from which they can hope to gather sympathizers.
>
>The Unabomber made himself famous, yes, but he also made his message infamous. Like I said, he poisoned the well. His actions didn't successfully draw supporters to his cause, and in fact probably pushed would-be sympathizers away.

Couldn't it be argued from this that there IS no way to make this message spread among a desirable population, if other conditions in the world didn't make them receptive to it?

I mean, basically, you can write whatever the fuck you like, and try to spread it however the fuck you like, but if THE HIGHER POWER doesn't want it to be fruitful, it won't be, if it does, it will be, if you get what I'm trying to say here.

>>8379351
They can both be used as both nouns and verbs, you had a shitty education. In fact I had a shitty education but they still taught me this at the start of high school.

>>8379386
It's not unique to that at all. Effect can be used in the sense of enacting, to effect legislation, to effect a judgement, the subject brings the object out into the world and gets it going. Affect means it has an influence, usually emotional, and that has often caused a change. So affecting legislation is changing out, effecting legislation is starting it up. To affect change means you changed the change, effect change means you caused it.

Both of you pls tell me where this shitty education is coming from.

>>8379819
>there IS no way to make this message spread among a desirable population, if other conditions in the world didn't make them receptive to it?
Social change is (must be) comprehensive and all-encompassing. Emancipation didn't really make blacks in the US "free," for example, as demonstrated by a hundred years of Jim Crow. A single course of action or a single doctrine is nothing without a favorable wind. It has to "go viral" and spread through every facet of society--economic, cultural, political, personal, familial. This is why I have said ITT that the psychology of a movement is just as important as its goals and message. An effective leader delivers the right message to the right people at the right time, and so on, again and again and again, until people internalize it. Then, the "desirable population" and the "higher power" are on your side.

>>8380004
>An effective leader delivers the right message to the right people at the right time
What I'm saying though is that this is a process that doesn't depend on the leader at all, it's something that is governed by other factors entirely. If a leader is needed, he will be created by those factors anyway, if not, things will go as they will anyway.

Has anyone read his short story, "Ship of Fools?"
It's actually a bretty gud parable that's funny and engaging.

>>8380017
If you accept that the actors involved are agents in their own right, then you have to accept that such agents can manipulate the "factors" to direct desired patterns of change.

Donald Trump preaches to angry disaffected white men. Donald Trump did not create angry disaffected white men (political rhetoric, economic shifts, etc. did), but he has the ability to "change the conversation" and direct their anger towards certain targets. Later on in the future this may influence other patterns. However, it is very hard to predict what patterns this may change, or how that will have an impact on society. Thus, it is difficult to use these tools to achieve a particular specific agenda in the long run.

>>8379493
But it wasn't anon, if you read anything Teddy boy wrote, you'd know this.

>>8380070
I've only read his critique of the modern left and it was pure bullshit. A bunch of rote bullshit given cred because he was a terrorist

>>8380126
Then why do you think you know anything about his views on technology and industrialism as it pertains to human society?

>>8379376
>See my (many) above posts. His violence wasn't just a wrong choice for vague moral reasons, but also from the perspective of the ideology. He poisoned the well, putting his ideas in an intellectual hole that will take longer to dig out of than starting a properly organized movement from scratch would have.
A mistake that most people make is to assume that the more followers you can recruit, the better. That's true if you are trying to win an election. A vote is a vote regardless of whether the voter is deeply committed or just barely interested enough to get to the polls. But when you're building a revolutionary movement, the number of people you have is far less important than the quality of your people and the depth of their commitment. Too many lukewarm or otherwise unsuitable people will ruin the movement.
Ted Kaczynski

>>8380414
Lemme guess
>industrial revolution was bad cuz muh Malthus
>society is bad cuz im sad :(

>>8380492
Cancerous pseud please leave this board

>>8380523
So what's his argument? I don't want to waste time reading the idiotic ranting of a retard (elliot rodger already wasted too much of my time)

>>8380490
I take your point, certainly, but what are you arguing? I think TK turned away both "suitable" and "unsuitable" people from his ideology.

I might even go as far as to say that a high proportion of the people who are interested in following in the footsteps of a serial bomber are mentally ill and largely unwilling or unable to perform useful work.

Much better would be to unite ideologue fundamentalists with charismatics and high-function workaholics. Like I said, you need the whole orchestra to make people listen and like what they hear, not just a few dissonant clashes of the gong.

>>8376295
Pretty weak considering what came from it. What little was interesting of it, Nietzsche did better in On the Genealogy of Morals. The rest was just playing into some childish fantasy about a masculine past that was never real.

He had this mistaken belief that since humanity was built by nature that a more natural state (whatever the fuck that really means) would satiate human desires more completely than modernity. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of nature. Our desires as humans are meant to keep us alive so that we can reproduce. Nature does not care if we are happy and fulfilled or miserable. It doesn't care if our lives are as suffering every waking moment. What matters is that we make babies and raise those babies so that the cycle can repeat again.

>>8380555
The people who are willing to read Kaczynski's work in the first place are people who are not afraid to get out of the hivemind and are fairly intelligent. The fact that he bombed people separated the wheat from the chaff in who would and would not read it and showed how serious he was about it.

This isn't stuff that's supposed to get middleaged suburban housewives to gather around in a circle and discuss it till it's reduced to insipidity, this is supposed to hit sparks that will eventually strike some dynamite somewhere.

Kacyznski seems a pariah now, but who knows if one day he and Ned Ludd won't be our greatest heroes? History's been rewritten in worse ways before.

>>8380561
You're making the error of personifying nature, as if it had a will as conscious as our own.

>>8380536
>I go on /lit/ but I'm too lazy to read because I'm a pseud so please spoonfeed me a wikipedia synopsis so I can continue wrongly assuming what's in the actual source material
Also, Kaczynski is by definition pretty much the opposite of a retard.

>>8380561
Well, the wealthy, capitalist, technological nations also tend to produce the fewest babies.

In some sense it is perfectly "natural" that agriculture and sedentary life would've become the norm for the vast majority of humanity, because grain producing societies were able to produce exponentially more offspring than their ancestors. One could argue that it is similarly natural for high-intensity agriculture, industrialization, modern medicine, etc. to spread. But can there come a point where the cost of these things is greater than their benefit?

Whether or not that is going to happen (or, indeed, has already happened), many have imagined it (authors especially, this being /lit/). If anthropogenic climate change, social unrest, world war, mass suicide, or any other crisis caused by industrial capitalism threatens the survival or the human species, it is then perfectly "natural" that we should come to seek a state that allows our survival. In other words, sustainability is our natural state. Or so one could argue.

>>8380582
Not an argument

>wants to destroy technology
>sends bombs to some minor academics instead of tech CEOs and factories

>>8380561
>The rest was just playing into some childish fantasy about a masculine past that was never real.
But that's bullshit, Kaczynski wrote a paper bashing the fantastical ideal of the past that most anarcho-primitivists hold, comparing it to what we actually know about prehistoric hunter gatherer societies. The man lived in the Montana wilderness for years basically self-sufficiently, he knew exactly what the implications of his anti-industrial ideas were.

>>8380596
That's not how that meme works. Why are you even on /lit/ if you don't want to read?

>>8380569
>who knows if one day he and Ned Ludd won't be our greatest heroes? History's been rewritten in worse ways before.
Ok, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I think intelligent and free-thinking people are likely to reject Kaczynski precisely because he was ineffective and had no viable plan (for all of the reasons I have discussed). It has nothing to do with "getting out of the hivemind," it has to do with recognizing how hivemind consensus comes to be in the first place, and discovering how to influence it.
That's exactly what you mean by "rewriting history" anyway, isn't it?

>>8380596
You're commenting without having any knowledge on the matter, and expect people to inform you about something you have implied you understand to the point that you can refute it. In reality, you have no knowledge of the matter and are too lazy to put in the time to make a valid critique. You are the definition of a pseud.

I haven't read it, but I've heard both good and bad things about what he said, but mostly good from the people whose opinions I respect. Regardless, I don't comment because I do not have a direct exposure to the material.

>>8380571
I'm just personifying it to make a point. Nature must necessarily tend towards to reproduction and the survival of a species above all else.

If anyone is made this mistake, it's Teddy boy. He believed that nature was his friend. A caregiver and affirmer of his life. That he could find something in it that never existed from a past that was never real.

Because you know, fuck literature. Fuck music. Fuck art in its entirety for that matter. He knew the secret truth that deep down the most fulfilling thing one can do with one's life barebones survival.

>>8380595
Ted didn't give a damn sustainability except that he believed the current system was unsustainable which gave him hope that he might get a ticket to his version of Disney World.