Anyway I've read the Unabomber Manifesto, like the half of it, and here are my thoughts.
1) Ted is smart as fuck, his essay is well thought out
2) One of the clear leaps of faith in his judgement is that humans want the freedom as he defined it
3) Other than that, he brilliantly points out the problems with industrial society; not that it's his original research even, or rather, not that he pulls stuff out of his ass - there are other socioligists and others who support his points; I mostly agree with his points, though his overview of leftism is kinda novel to me; not that I ever cared about them though
4) A lot of important points as on why the technocratic society is unreformable are unfortunately omitted, though probably implied; however, I believe he misjudged some of the possibilities for reformation, or rather, not the reformation per se, but the future of the "free" society
5) In fact, he doesn't think much about the future; as a revolutionary thinker, he really doesn't care what happens after factories are destroyed and blueprints burned; he does not make a prediction about the tech making its return, he just wants it gone now
So, overall his manifesto is not strong enough, unfortunately. Though I wouldn't be surprised if the revolution he wants actually happened. Like, legit.
>>990 >antijews
No, that's just part of their master plan on how to enslave you. Don't believe him, he's a jew, even if he's "antijew". All kikes will be gassed and all their ideas with them.
>smart
No, aryans are smart, jews just pretend to be. Don't let them infect your northern slavic, aryan brain.
>>988 His analysis of left and right is mostly correct. But i find his hate toward technology really stupid, he seems to see technology as some sort of evil while in fact it's part of the natural evolution of an intelligent species, technology is not good or bad, it's just a tool, if there is evil is in men. What i really don't understand is how he seems to think that without technology comes more freedom, while basic logic shows the contrary.
>>989 le spooky joo
go back to 8chan /pol/ pls
>>993 >What i really don't understand is how he seems to think that without technology comes more freedom, while basic logic shows the contrary.
He explained it pretty well I think.
First, read his definition of freedom, because he doesn't accept anything else.
Then, it mostly boils down to the fact that more technology means more regulations and more stuff you as an individual cannot influence at all.
>But i find his hate toward technology really stupid
It's not really about hate, it seems about seeing drawbacks of technology that cannot really be undone.
>>992 >>993 I'm glad you took the, say, bait, but very sad that one can even consider said behavior possible, even on imageboards.
Anyway, I didn't read it, I hate reading on screen, just scrolled through it, but various ultraleft and individualist people said pretty much the same as him centuries ago, what's, say, unique about him is his fervent obscurantism and hatred towards anything left, ie towards anything that can actually deal, or try to deal, with the said issues. If he was a serious writer/philosopher I'd call him very normal american hack. He's traditionalist and not revolutionary though, so I'm not suprised.
>>988 >overview of leftism is kinda novel to me; not that I ever cared about them though
Then you missed out on pretty much everything, as they are, literally, the only ones struggling to explain today's problem, phenomens and present solutions etc.
Despite Thoreau being more of an ultraleftist than anything else in his meanings and living on completely different earth and being a very bad example, rightists who are not interested in exploiting have one thing in common and that is just abandoning things without ever trying to understand underlying concepts and so on, just escaping them so they can return and haunt them in another form or focusing on symptoms, as is very in fashion right now, now that this hasteful world is overfilled with meaningless and cheap garbage, information and everything, hindered with 'work'.
>>1005 What bait? The Jew shit? Let's say I'm kinda hypersensitive to this mental retardation of /pol/. Everything must be blamed on Jews, even though Jews themselves state that it kinda got them where they are. Institutional oppression and non-inclusivity with other folks will do that to you.
>but various ultraleft and individualist people said pretty much the same as him centuries ago
Well, you better read it because he explains why the current situation is even worse, and he admits not being unique. But anyway, blaming somebody mentioning the same issues as other in not being "unique" is braindamaged.
>He's traditionalist and not revolutionary though, so I'm not suprised.
He's revolutionary in a sense that he is radical. I even want to say everybody who is radical is a revolutionary. It's how radical thinking works.
And I believe traditionalism is for preserving current trends, not for changing them. The current trend is the deepening and widening of the industrial society, 'tis pretty evident.
>>1011 I don't see how you call people rooting for everyone to go innawoods "leftists", but whatever.
Leftism is pretty much set in stone as a state-backed machine trying to give you some civil freedoms. No state means no left (or right, for that matter).
>they can return and haunt them in another form or focusing on symptoms
I don't believe Ted focuses much on symptoms. He doesn't provide a solution though. I mean, even if his revolution happens, it's not exactly hard to go through the same process again. It could take like half a millenium, but we'd be at the same place again.
Like, I wouldn't call him a hack. I would call him desperate though.
>>1018 >why the current situation is even worse
I know, everybody with eyes sees it. Both.
>blaming somebody mentioning the same issues as others in not being "unique" is braindamaged
I said nowhere I'm blaming him. I really can't since it's manifesto, mere overview of why he did what he did.
I'd be blaming him if he was philosopher or something.
>traditionalist
>revolutionary
>everybody who is radical is a revolutionary
Revolution isn't revolution unless it comes with very deep societal changes on individual level, transforming life into something that's either haven't been here or opening a completely new perspectives, possible outlooks and so on. Fundamental change in both life and thought at least state-wide. Lenin's and microchip are probably the only ones that qualify. Shame the microchip one went nowhere beneficial.
>current trend is the deepening and widening of the industrial society
You meant post-industrial.
>>1019 >I wouldn't call him a hack. I would call him desperate though
If he was truly desperate, he'd write a poem, probably in free verse. Music is what makes one kill for the sun.
>>989 I rather despise sentiments along these lines. Copy & paste everything Ted said into the writing of an aryan, and it's suddenly okay with you NPCs.
There are many full-blood aryans today who hold globalist, communistic, and pro-Isreal ideals. Are their opinions approved just cause they're from an aryan; they're not bad because they're due to brainwashing rather than original thought?
Would about the gentleman who made a thorough documentary disproving the holocaust ( https://archive.org/embed/DavidColeInAuschwitz--DavidColeInterviewsDr.FranciszekPiperDirectorAuschwitzStateMuseum )? Is he wrong because he's a dirty dirty kike?
This linear line of thinking is dangerous, borish, and a bastardization of national socialism. When Hitler himself had non-traitorous Jews in his own high command, it's time to reconsider this black and white thinking.
Are most jews irredeemably evil? Yes, of course. Are most aryans the heart of prosperous civilization? Yes, obviously. However, to conflate outlier, good Jews, the kind who have sentiments you can just copy paste on an aryan viably, with the majority of their evil kind is silly. To conflate brain washed aryans with those that hold true to our roots, similarly so.
1) Ted is smart as fuck, his essay is well thought out
2) One of the clear leaps of faith in his judgement is that humans want the freedom as he defined it
3) Other than that, he brilliantly points out the problems with industrial society; not that it's his original research even, or rather, not that he pulls stuff out of his ass - there are other socioligists and others who support his points; I mostly agree with his points, though his overview of leftism is kinda novel to me; not that I ever cared about them though
4) A lot of important points as on why the technocratic society is unreformable are unfortunately omitted, though probably implied; however, I believe he misjudged some of the possibilities for reformation, or rather, not the reformation per se, but the future of the "free" society
5) In fact, he doesn't think much about the future; as a revolutionary thinker, he really doesn't care what happens after factories are destroyed and blueprints burned; he does not make a prediction about the tech making its return, he just wants it gone now
So, overall his manifesto is not strong enough, unfortunately. Though I wouldn't be surprised if the revolution he wants actually happened. Like, legit.
Have some weeb shit on topic.
E83hl6hDfKQ
Thanks for reading.