https://abcnews.go.com/US/unabomber-ted-kaczynski-found-dead-jail-cell/story?id=99984583
>Ted Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber, was found dead in his prison cell Saturday morning, according to a Federal Bureau of Prisons spokesperson. He was 81.
>Kaczynski was previously in a maximum security facility in Colorado but was moved to a medical facility in North Carolina in December 2021 due to poor health.
>Kaczynski, who went nearly 20 years without being captured, was considered America's most prolific bomber. His 16 bombs killed three people and injured two dozen others, the FBI said, until his arrest in 1996.Uncle Ted might've been a meme, but I'm still somewhat sad to see him go. Rest in Power, King
>>575375Reminder that the industrial revolution was the greatest even in human history.
Also didnt he said to vote Hillary once? lol
>>575375F
>>575378I know nothing about anthropology: the post
>>575394>anthropologyTedcels unironically believe they are anthropology experts now ? lmao. Yep bombing random production factories will emancipate humanity from capitalists any second now
>>575399Killing people wont solve shit. Somebody other dumbass will replace the position easily. The system is what must be changed. Also he was an anti leftie reactionary so why should we care about him.. literally nobody here defended those he killed
>>575401I.Q. measures how well you can follow patterns
It doesn't mean you're clever
>>575375Knew he was going to go, Had cancer.
RIP you mad man. Iconoclast. Autist. Legend.
>>575423Yea. not weird how you explicitly want to center this one thing. not strange at all.
you tiny brained fucking retard. jfc.
>>575375Good riddance. Reactionary retard writing theorylet nonsense.
Unironically, one of those cases where transitioning might have saved them.
>>575456When communism is mainstream there will be something better.
Progress does not stop.
Revolution never ends.
>>575467No
2012 Reddit meme text
Luigi Pasinetti gets a small thread, Makoto Itoh's death gets a brief mention in the e-celeb trash thread, and fucking Kaczynski of all people gets a sticky.
>>575459WTF
>>575469reddit burned it a long time ago
and the only people who still use it with shitty rl images that has smug redditor tones are old or mainstream Twitter and Facebook users
>>575483 (me)
*plagiarizing
>>575452Get a new joke.
>>575487>over-socializationOf course the CIA MK-Uktra'd incel Yankee sees over a socialization in a tremendously atomized society.
>>575505>i said muh so you can't you that argument anymore!suck my fucking dick
MUH conforts of modern society
don't care about idpol shit
Ted was actually just a high autism score thingnoticer. The entire manifesto is dogshit postmodern psychoanalysis.
1.His brain was completely fucked by obsessing over the culture war. He constantly obsessed over abstract ideas - meaning of things that dont exist (like 'leftism'), morality (how he justifies everything), constantly presenting his subjective truths as objective (constant use of 'IS', reinforcing his beliefs) - and ignored reality.
2. He has good general knowledge of things and is highly critical of the system, but his criticisms have no material basis. For example, he seems to have read some Marx but he did so critically. This is like reading a science textbook critically as a theologist; the criticisms have no actual basis in reality. See point 1.
>Paragraph 6: "The concept of ‘leftism’ will have to be explained later (see paragraphs 227-230). For the time being we will use the term ‘leftism’ in a very loose sense. We mean to include the following movements, which we recognize as strongly leftist: feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights, political correctness. Anyone who is strongly sympathetic to any of these movements is almost certainly leftist. The more such movements there are and the more strongly they are advocated, the more leftist the atmosphere becomes. In this sense leftism is a totalitarian force: It tends to invade every aspect of life and to force its mode of thought on all people insofar as possible. Leftism is in part a psychological phenomenon, and most leftists are leftist for psychological reasons.
>Paragraph 15: "The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist."
Morality and Revolution, Paragraph 1
>"Morality, guilt and fear of condemnation act as cops in our heads, destroying our spontaneity, our wildness, our ability to live our lives to the full. They are a major factor in preventing us from achieving freedom. I try to act on my whims, my spontaneous urges without caring what others think of me. I don’t want to be a slave to anyone’s morality. I want no constraints on my life; I want the opening of all possibilities. The system has no moral right to reduce us to mere tools for its own ends; rather, we have a moral right to rid ourselves of any system that does not adequately meet our needs as human beings."
>>575505I read Industrial Society and Its Future a while ago.
Some people have pointed out that he is anti-leftist, and it's indeed the subject of the opening chapter, but I felt like he was more criticizing liberals and cultish activists with the concept of "oversocialization" than leftists who are aware that class struggle is all about collective action for the sake of our own selfish interests.
As long as you aren't an insufferable virtue-signalling dork who love to flaunt your superior morals in front of everyone, his rant about leftists don't really apply.
The most interesting part of it is his critique of technology, the fact that humans are trapped into what Marxists call "value production".
The productive forces are organized in such a huge network, made of too many different parts that are too complex to comprehend in their totality, that therefore it's impossible for us to have any real control over them.
This makes us alienated and passive ("hyperdomestication"). Furthermore, the process of "value production" actively destroys nature at an exponential rate, the only thing sustaining life on Earth, only for a vacuous search for profits. This is certainly not sustainable, this organization of society will inevitably collapse sooner or latter, and it will be absolute hell to simply survive when it will happen.
This is my generous interpretation. There is also a critique of media inspired by Marshall McLuhan. Ted K was rather intelligent.
However, he has no solution, no positive project, his conclusion is that you have to take the blackpill, everyone is going to die during the ecological apocalypse and then you will return to monke.
He is very American in that sense, his solution doesn't involve any collective solution beyond a tribal form of socialization. "You will have to fight against bears and Nature with whatever weapon you have at hand and you will be happy" basically.
The most glaring flaw in his thesis (especially for a Marxist) is: why would survivors of an ecological apocalypse content themselves with a primitive lifestyle for eternity, when they already have a clear idea in mind of what an agricultural civilization is?
The survivors, once they get accustomed to live in the wild, will tell their grandchildren about tales of a civilization who used to feed themselves by controlling the growth of plants over seasons. They might have been atomized in their previous life and clueless about agricultural techniques before the collapse, but eventually, the next generations of survivors will seek more reliable ways to get food, then it's Chapter 5 of the Society of the Spectacle all over again.
I would recommend reading the thinkers who influenced Ted K rather than his texts.
Ivan Illich's critique of technology for example, goes very far, regarding car-centric society; but also healthcare and schooling, and I can't possibly agree with everything, especially considering how neoliberalism is destroying such public services since the 1970s.
But at least Illich had a positive project, the project of creating
convivial tools, tools that are easy to produce and use, immediately useful, simple to fix and customize, accessible for everyone. The whole family should be able to enjoy a good
convivial tool.
Illich takes the example of the bicycle as such a tool, but it's worth noting that his book Tools for Conviviality also influenced one early inventor of personal computers (!): Lee Felsenstein.
I've heard Jacques Ellul also has an interesting critique of technology, but I haven't read him.
tl;dr: Ted Kaczynski was smart but also a huge moron.
>>575531actually that's pretty similar of how my thoughts turned out
except iirc ted was more influenced by ellul. i got more from reading technological society and propaganda than i did from any of ted's works, and i haven't finished 1/10 of either. it's like isaif but in more thorough detail, and without the "we must go back" conclusion.
Unique IPs: 81