>lefties are... LE BAD
so this is the 9000 IQ genius you were talking about?

>>24511538 (OP)
why do so many people worship this dude yet they don't take any step to go out into one wilderness and live a technology-free life

>>24511538 (OP)
poor man's Linkola

>>24511538 (OP)
he's nostradamus

>>24511541
Because they feel he accurately diagnosed the major societal problems we're going through, but he didn't come up with a workable solution. He did find a way to spread his message, but nothing else in the solution department.

>>24511574
bomb stuff and live in the woods?

>>24511578
Can you respond in complete sentences please?

>>24511538 (OP)
>shamelessly copies Nietzsche slave and master morality and label liberals as leftists
He should have shot himself way earlier, instead of all gayslop he read, he should have tried Manuscripts 1844

If he was just "lefties bad," I could maybe see the appeal. Instead, he's
>tech is bad, because...it just is, OK?!

>>24511670
>>tech is bad, because...it just is, OK?!
you've got to be trolling

>>24511538 (OP)
ted is an arrogant, condescending midwit.

>>24511538 (OP)
>lefties are... SPOILERS FOR REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS
Yes, good point that informs any potential anti-tech strategy
>>24511541
adressed in the books
>>24511574
he did, read the books
>>24511670
read the books and also ellul if you actually care

>>24511538 (OP)
If you believe what this schizo says and don't become Amish or whatever, you are a hypocrite. Accerlationism > > > > > > reactionary return to grug

>>24511793
He's pretty much under studied in IR theory if that's what you mean

>>24511799
>Accerlationism
you are trans

>>24511793
>books
Book. And I did read it, his solution is not sufficient. "We can't win against tech but we have to try" doesn't inspire anyone or even work.

>>24511808
I don't know what you mean that I mean. That he should be read by international relations students? Nah, I don't think so, he doesn't go very deep into it and his insights are almost certainly not new

>>24511837
No, plural. And he does think we can win.

>>24511799
didn't read him

>>24511818
Actually, your idol Teddy K was a closeted troon. Also he even admits in like the first paragraph that Accerlationism and tech can solve all problems, but, *bane voice* "It would be extremely painful".

>>24511538 (OP)
>lefties are... LE BAD
Yep. All of them. Don't fucking care what pronoun you go by. You're all the same type of GRIDS to me faggots

>>24511793
ellul more like dull

>>24511852
Disingenuous. He does not in any way believe tech can solve all or even most of problems he addresses. What he says is that
> 2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it *may* eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.

>>24511885
And then, relevantly for accelerationists
> 3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.

>>24511663
>noooo those aren't REAL leftists
We know. Also, addressed right there in the manifesto section on modern leftist psychology.

>>24511885
>dignity and autonomy.
>only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine
Nigga who cares. Ted knows we don't have free will, so why is he having a melty over this fake and gay spooks? There is literally nothing wrong with us becoming like The Borg in Star Trek if it makes us stronger and happier.

>>24511921
You have to be 18 to post on this website. Also, I care, and that's addressed in the manifesto. Ellul doesn't always explicitly judge but would also help to counter this crap. But you didn't read either, so I guess you can't know and you really have nothing at all to contribute.

>>24511921
>there is literally nothing wrong with us becoming like The Borg in Star Trek
There is no recourse for people like you other than gas chambers, it's truly comical how you think your argument goes anywhere after embracing the idea that human dignity doesn't exist. Your life as a cockroach is interchangeable with the lives of nobles, scholars and warriors? You are a coping, projecting trannynigger with no friends.

>>24511571
Nostra was a master confectioner. He came up with the process to achieve picrel. This commands respect. And joy. A lot of childish joy.

>>24511948
You sound like a jeet with how much you're jerking off to a rigid caste system in 2025.

>>24511936
Good thing I'm 18+10.
>that's addressed in the manifesto
I do remember him flat out admitting that free will wasn't real, but not why all of his coping and seething still mattered at that point then.
>Ellul
Coping reactionary schizo christcuck
>But you didn't read either
I read Ted's manifesto a while ago.

>>24511981
That's depressing. But yeah, any attempt at conversation with you will go nowhere. Could you put on a trip, please?

>>24511538 (OP)
the problem is that chuds read his writing on leftists and think that it’s based because he owned the libs. But that has nothing to do with the reason he said that stuff. Everything he said was because he wanted to exclude leftists from the anti-tech revolutionary core he wanted to form. It has nothing to do with the beliefs of leftists on race or economics. It was purely because he saw them as a threat who would co-opt the anti tech revolutionary movement and subvert it so that it ends up supporting the system. That is why he said they were “oversocialized,” to point out that they are not actually interested in overthrowing the system. He doesn’t care about any social issues, because he sees all discourse on social issues as a distraction that prevents people from changing the technological system. He also attacked conservatives, fascists, white supremacists, etc, he just spent more time on leftists because leftists are the ones who are attracted to “revolutionary” movements and could threaten an anti-tech revolution.

Man was a literal genius and admitted into Harvard as a CHILD. He had an IQ of 167.

Dipshit brainlets malding ITT.

>>24511776
He’s not stupid, he’s just mentally ill and that pollutes his reasoning.

>>24512132
Examples? You're not the guy going on about congestion from before, right?

>>24512152
> You're not the guy going on about congestion from before
No
>Examples?
Maybe he’s not “mentally ill”, but he is an incredibly angry person, and no one who lives in complete isolation can be said to be “sane.”
His entire position makes no sense, because he wants to prevent the societal collapse that would kill billions by… causing a technological collapse that would kill billions. It clearly makes no difference whether there is an anti tech revolution or not, so it’s obvious that his whole motivation is out of anger and resentment against “society” and his writings are a post hoc justification of this.

>>24512167
> “society”
I was gonna say “the system” but then changed it to “society” but accidentally left the quotation marks

>>24512167
>>24512152
Also, he even admits as a child that he had fantasies about becoming a hitlerian dictator and causing a genocide against humanity, in one of his autobiographies that can be found on the ted k archive. So the fact that the anti tech revolution would kill billions is not an unfortunate consequence, but the whole point of it in the first place. What he really wants is revenge

>>24512167
Maybe. I disagree and don't think it matters anyway whether he's a misanthrope or felt wronged or something like that. I believe in his position regardless of whether he did. But it does make a difference, doesn't it? Ted thinks that letting it continute will cause (or is causing) a catastrophe that's much worse both qualitatively and quantitatively.

>>24511538 (OP)
the most cited authors in anti tech rev are lenin and mao. whats that book lenin wrote again ?

>>24512615
That doesn't seem true at all, skimming through the notes. What are you getting at?

>>24511541
every ted thread is the same. Always the same stupid questions by people that never read a single word and only know him because of memes

>>24512694
Lenin wrote a book called " “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder". My point is that attacking leftism and leftists from a materialist perspective is nothing new.
>>24512117 summed up everything. Kaczysnki is obsessed with strategy, hence his intense interest in lenin and mao. Kaczynski opens up the manifesto with an attack of leftist psychology to deter them. It worked.
Post-situationism, autonomism, just to name a few radical left currents - have had the intelligence to recognize the relevance of Kaczynski's works instead of rejecting him completely without any thought.

>>24511538 (OP)
That’s not even the major point of his works, and he also expresses it far more intelligently than you did, anyway. He criticizes the mainstream forms of rightism or conservatism in the modern West today, too, and strongly, by astutely noting that even entities like, say, the Republican Party, worship Big Business and technological and industrial advancements, the growth of which will inevitably further uproot whatever cultural norms and traditions “conservatives” are trying to “conserve”; basically buying into and growing the reach and power of what he calls The System here.
He has some similar astute criticisms of modern socially progressive, liberal, and leftist ideals, and it’s not even coming from a “rightwing chud” standpoint, he’s similarly against extremes like fascism and Nazism. But his astute criticisms of them on a practical level are also complemented by his astounding and brutal psychological analysis of them and their motives (specific types of leftists or liberals), under the section on what he calls “oversocialization” in Industrial Society and Its Future. That shit almost literally took apart and rewired my psyche as a highschooler when I was an edgy, depressed young kid who got interested in it somehow and decided to read it.
It described me exactly to a tee; and, as I realized, certainly other similar leftist/liberal/progressive/or even what he calls “leftish” types (to make a point that it’s a specific and somewhat warped form of leftism). I was here feeling incredibly guilty about being a white male, and all the suffering of groups like blacks, Jews, women, Native Americans, etc. But his analysis picked apart my psychosocial masochism, my morbidity and obsession with gloom, defeat, despair, a martyrdom complex, a feeling of weakness, powerlessness, not being able to hold up in a competitive society, which hence encouraged my views to be against what I imagined as the (unjustly and over-privileged) powerful/healthy/strong oppressors of society. Extreme guilt about all the tendencies in myself which also could be seen as over-privileged, or bigoted, or whatever. Over-socialization.

>>24512796
In fairness, parts of his analysis also almost exactly match up with Nietzsche’s idea of ressentiment (also slave moralizing), he just put it in a more concise, more plaintext modern form (without all the anthropological and poetic and literary and philosophical and linguistic etc. flourishes of Nietzsche).
Another major point he makes is that, if such forms of liberalism or leftism aren’t tackling the issues he sees with modern industrialized and increasingly technological society, then they are like cosmetic changes, they do not fight the System but simply are allowed outlets, sometimes even pushed by the System or through means like its technological media, for people’s rebellious impulses. As he puts it, people can think they’re enlightened freedom-fighters while still conforming to the System in almost every way, feeding it, strengthening it, paying taxes for it, etc.

His 2016 book Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How is also incredible. It’s an even more philosophical, erudite, and scholarly book, full bibliography and endnotes/citations and the like, and honestly even polymathic to an extent. Or at least very interdisciplinary. He used his time well in prison, if nothing else, with LOTS of reading, even if I dislike what he did to get himself in prison in the first place. His first manifesto ISAIF was explicitly meant to be less technical and ultra-scholarly, a practical choice to make it more accessible to more readers and have the impact he hoped it would. But if you doubt Kaczynski’s intelligence (FFS, he was a mathematical genius too, he even has the academic history before the attacks to back that up), I’d recommend picking it up.

You can find it online easily as a PDF.
https://www.resistanceprotocols.com/library/ATR/ATR%20Why%20and%20How.pdf

>>24511839
No, meaning he's wholly ignorant of it. Totally the opposite of what I was trying to say.

Daily reminder that he has gender dysphoria and seriously considered trooning out.

>>24511538 (OP)
You got filtered by the first chapter. This was by design.

>>24512961
Oh, sure. I've never heard anyone called under or over studied like that before.

>>24511559
>supported china one child policy.

>>24511559
Linkola was an idiot outside his field. His suggestions are just an arbitrary list of bizarre policies he'd force through as an absolute autocrat, like a teenager's political daydreams on how he'd fix the world. Not actually anti-tech and completely useless as guidance for any potential movement.

>>24511793
>/lit/ posters dont read
imagine my surprise

>>24511981
>You sound like a jeet with how much you're jerking off to a rigid caste system in 2025.
NTA but being too late to establish a caste system is why jeets even exist, and why the U.S. and Europe won't be white anymore but will be dominated by sandniggers and jeets

>>24511955
yummy

>>24512177
>Also, he even admits as a child that he had fantasies about becoming a hitlerian dictator and causing a genocide against humanity
Sounds mentally sane to me, at least more than you soulless office workers and passive cogs of the system

Leftists should all be genocided.

>>24511538 (OP)
Flight 444. Dude just wanted to kill people to inflate his own ego, the whole manifesto was just cope to soothe his super ego.

>>24513536
yup, schizo troon who got his brain melted at Harvard hiding his resentment behind lazily slapped together ideas lifted from smarter people

>>24512117
>He doesn’t care about any social issues,
Kind of true yet he also comments about their obesession with social issues caused by oversocialization.

>>24511538 (OP)
It's just a load of projection mixed with some pop psychology that was in vogue at the time.
As a rule when a right-wing nut makes an accusation you can be sure they're airing out one of their own neuroses.

>>24513838
Everyone bases their writings on their own experience of the world, a priori.

>>24513838
Ted wasn't right wing, you absolute imbecile.

He's right but it doesn't matter because everything humans do is just subjective nonsense we literally wont even know when the ship has sunk we'll be too busy arguing at a wall or something

it was a critique of the left from the left you moron
big K and Evola wrote with the same spirit