3
18

[–] 8732665? 3 points 18 points (+21|-3) ago  (edited ago)

He is obviously right about the suffering the current system causes, but I think he is overly pessimistic with regard to the long term future under the current system. As blogger EvolutionistX has observed, "modernity selects for those who resist it." Traditional families have more children than progressives and they also tend to avoid miscegenation. As long as whites can avoid being genocided, eventually things should turn out alright.

0
5

[–] 8736143? 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

For the sake of debate, I think Ted is right. Our technology causes hypersocialization, (hypermorality, if you will) wherein people have decided how things should be, nature be damned. Not only nature be damned, the design of the system seems to take that which natural and goes directly in opposition to it.

Technology is invented specifically to spite nature, to battle an issue nature has. We have an inherent failure in perspective that will never change regardless of technology. One point he talks about is large-scale vs small-scale technology. That address power consolidation, but doesn't address resource availability.

Until we change our perspective to accept the law of nature and only use technology in accordance with these laws, rather than trying to bend/break/manipulate/cheat/etc these laws, we will always end up in a worse spot. Why?

Technology has increased our productive capacity. Indeed, this can't be argued. However, it has also exponentially increased our consumptive capacity. We are going through natural resources more quickly than ever. It costs more energy than ever to produce our energy. We'll eventually go bankrupt.

His point about conservatives pushing for tradition but still trying technology is correct. It doesn't matter if we have family values. We could have a wonderful family with valuesworking on a Monsanto funded farm and that would still give us the result of eventual collapse because no matter how much energy you put in, you can't get more out. All of our technology only puts us further into debt. For every 1 calorie we can produce more easily, it cost an extra 5. As long as we consume more calories than we produce, we will always feel the stress of going into debt and potential collapse.

I say this for everyone, regardless of race. This system is a debt based system. No matter how much we put in, it will fail.

So, what to do? Become independent. Provide your own food, shelter, energy, etc. Stop relying on the "modern" system that can't be replicated outside of centralization.

Food is first. Learn to raise your own animals and farm. Permaculture is a great school of farming. Highly sustainable. Learn sustainable, organic practices. If we change our food system, we will see the rest of civilization follow suit.

0
2

[–] pushthis 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

i presume none of what you said was your own opinion personally. technology doesnt cause hypersocialization, craving and aversion and delusion do.

if we were in a forest and both had a can of soup. what do you say would be the most advanced way to cook it? iso-butane? distilled alcohol can stove? what about three rocks and a simple pot that didnt take much to produce? Cooking with three rocks is skilled in this circumstance- nevermind the word "technology".

Therefore technology is best explained as accumulated knowlege and is best stated thus "the desire or even greed/lust for more iterations of understanding need not come before our desire for calm and virtue. calm and virtue being the vital prerequisites to strong concentration. concentration being the prerequisite to discerning rightly. discerning rightly being what we really need to stop stress alltogether.

from my understanding of Buddhist derived wisdom, this i hold as true.

e,technology is what we ascribe to it. i ascribe cooking with wood as "technologically advanced" because it is whats most skillful (uses what is abundant, took little to bring about). a Tesla roadster is convuluted, overkill, brings more liability than is needed so that to me is technologically dumb. Lest we define technology as a compendium of learnedness, not nessicarilly elegant, usefull, but albeit builds towards More (:)) understanding of Somthing. peace!! ee,oversocialization is desireable as long as we desire it- it actually brings people down,, as i think you know.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] hotairmakespopcorn 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Not that you're wrong, but he was actually in the precursor program which became mkultra. Which I find especially interesting since he was that fucked up before they actually figured out what they were doing. Just imagine how refined it is today. Especially since they have the technology (microwave, and directional speaker technology) to make people hear voices only they can hear. We easily have the technology to drive someone to insanity. If you know how to direct it, you have a manufactured patsy for every day of the week.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] 8736592? 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

While this may be true, it's more debateable how much of the Unibomber was deliberate CIA creation, and how much was "unintentional" "side-effects". My guess is more the later.

1
2

[–] 1moar 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

All of this. He was one of the only survivors afaik.

0
8

[–] BistroPalin 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Yes, absolutely. I love original sources.

I really liked his beginning set up criticizing modern society, technology and culture. He's a smart guy and it's a well written essay. But then he takes a turn and then concludes the answer is to murder what amounts to random people. That's the non-sequitor fallacy.

Reading his essay was the first time I saw how the non-sequitor is a really dangerous and effective propaganda technique. He was totally ineffective himself since he released it after he had started committing atrocities so people just didn't want to bother with it, but it's also used a lot outside of madmen who have already committed atrocities. I see it all over the place in the way Ted framed it. Something is wrong, therefore... kill. The latter does not really follow from the former though.

0
3

[–] 8736173? 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

A boycott of technology and going "off grid" seems to be the most reasonable solution. However, I can imagine how much of a mind fuck it would be to be that red pilled in the 90s. Who could you possibly relate to? Even if you could maintain sanity enough to gather some people to understand, they'd likely already be kinda nuts. Like a hippy or monk who is already planning on shunning modernity and technology.

0
2

[–] BistroPalin 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Well it wasn't just voluntary red-pilling. When he was a student at Harvard he was a CIA MKUltra test subject where they actually tortured him and this experience was formative in his decision to isolate himself. I think it's reasonable that it was also a key factor in his going mad since it's comparable to what bin Laden, Noriega, and other assets at one point controlled by the CIA did.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/06/chase.htm

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/09/how-the-cia-created-the-unabom.html

http://listverse.com/2013/07/05/top-10-most-bizarre-little-known-stories-of-science/

0
7

[–] Travisty 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Yes, it was posted last week and was a pretty good read

0
4

[–] cousineerie [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Okay, I wasn't aware that a thread was recently made in regards to this. I read the manifesto many years back.

0
6

[–] Fahrvergnaked 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I never saw that thread. No foul here, thanks for the read.

0
5

[–] Travisty 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I still voted up. More people should read it!

0
6

[–] 0fsgivin 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Yah, it's the same as most far right stuff.

Some good points mixed in with mostly batshit crazy.

Which is the same thing as most far left stuff.

Turns out extremism is usually a bad idea.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

19
0

[–] o_V_o 19 points 0 points (+19|-19) ago 

What it's like only understanding the world through movie references?

0
8

[–] MrPim 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Ups and downs, strikes and gutters...

0
4

[–] Gorillion 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Movie and pop culture references are the lingua franca of the internet. They cut to the point. And Fight Club is a comparison 99% of readers will understand instantly, and doesn't require over-explanation.

4
3

[–] piratse 4 points 3 points (+7|-4) ago 

Sounds like he used a movie reference to sum up whiny Ted. Why do you assume he only understands the would through movie references?

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] RamblinRambo 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

There are some points in it that are accurate in explaining our current world. However, once you read it more carefully and with thought it's just a long list of things that can be applied to any time in history. It's almost too clean and conveniently formulated. Whole one can agree with many of the points in a lot of the manifestos out there left behind by "one-hit-wonder" psychopaths they all highlight one thing very clearly. That is, that had they spent the same amount of time and energy spreading their message of change, and constructively interacted with people they could have done a lot of good. Instead most of them disappear from this planet, along with their thoughts, in a cloud of smoke and what they leave behind resentment and anger towards their ideas, no matter how good they might be if viewed objectively thus pushing back any hope for change for years or decades. And it is because of this why false flag operations are such a great tool for governments.

Once a movement, ideology, set of beliefs or change in public opinion that has the potential to crumble the status quo of the establishment comes along, all they need to do to put the sheep back in line is to do something evil in the name of whatever it is that threatens them. Look as Syria. A few pictures of dead kids, a few twisted half-truth intelligence reports and the world is willing to remove the only secular leader in the Middle East that is Assad. God forbid that the military-industrial complex doesn't get more order, or that Israels Greater Israel project fails.

There's a good reason why so many call the Unabomber etc. false flags, because many of them most likely are. Anyone with the intellect to formulate and produce well spoken manifestos etc. is, unless severely mentally ill, capable of understanding that a one man mission is futile.

0
5

[–] Johncocktosten 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

His use of the car to demonsatrate how a once convenient technology becomes a tool of control was especially poignant. Just apply to the phone or almost any other life aiding tech. Robots seem to be next and the scariest of the lot.

load more comments ▼ (16 remaining)