why do people on this forum defend the unibomber

anti-tech revolution is fantastic, his manifesto is garbage
 
its dumb how people larp as ted lovers while not seeing his faults
I mean, I don't know much about Ted K so I don't really care one way or the other. But I'm behind all manner of antiheroes. Marvin Heemeyer, for instance. That dude was the absolute ultimate badass.
 
I wish uncle Ted went after someone else besides a computer store owner. Could have changed the course of history..Must have been that MK Uktra
 
He was a bit ahead of his time on the modern lefty issue, but the man had too much of an ego to test his idea's where they might receive pushback and therefore put his own mental development to death the moment he went full hermit. He became an echo chamber unto himself.

Imagine how much that faggot would have accomplished for the world if he had the balls to let his views get out there, challenged and fought for them rather than hiding and seething.
 
Probably the same way people admire Marx. For all his faults, Marx very astutely observed some major flaws in the capitalist economic model. Such as the nature of Capital to consume its Productive Base like some maddened ouroboros. Marxist economic thinkers were the first to observe that paying workers shit and despoiling the land in the search of "more" eventually led to calamity. Nobody could afford the shit they were making, and the productive capacity of the land eventually fails. Meaning everyone gets to live in misery except the very elite of the elite who still have the means to hire men with guns to keep the Proles down.

The problem with Marx however is that his proposed solution, the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and no Private Property was a terrible solution to a very complex problem. Kaczynski was much the same way. His observation on over socialization, especially among Men were pretty bang on. As were his observations on how the removal of struggle in our day to day lives in favor of technological indolence makes for weak societies. Its not a particularly OLD idea however. Its called Decadence and human societies have struggled with it for a long time now. So in that respect he's just parroting stuff even the Roman philosophers bitched about in their decadent phase.

His proposed solution of triggering violent revolution and returning to nature was likewise incredibly off point. For one thing, the only way to enter that state would be a full on civilization failure like the Bronze Age Collapse, and there simply is no capability of that short of nuclear Armageddon. And since the elite power structures ostensibly needing to be overthrown control the nukes that is unlikely to occur. Any sort of revolution in todays age would simply mean elite replacement, rather then the end of civilization. Or even more likely, the revolt would fail (because the elites do have nukes) and the result would be even greater emphasis on putting the useless eaters in Pods or a Soma Coma.

I much preferred Frank Herberts ideas. Instead of returning to Monkey, we should return to Tradition. and Religion. Does not matter what Traditions or Religions either. Just have them. Believe them. And purge any heretics.
 
There are 3 camps for ted enthusiasts. Edgelords, rightists, and anprims. Edgelords obviously want to look cool and edgy and gravitated around the man who got bamboozled the FBI long enough that they conceded and let his manifesto get published in the Washington post. Rightists love him because of his detailed analysis of leftism (aka the new-left), academia, oversocialization, and a few other minor bits in his works, that and rightists tend to idolize domestic terrorists and the like adding to ted's streetcred in their eyes. However in atleast one letter he wrote ted expressed disdain for ethnonationalism and the like, in a twist of irony one of their idols would be abhorred by their ideals. Ultimately though his analysis of the aforementioned is worth the read. Anprims are just retarded and subscribe to the other sections of his works that rightists ignore, I wont even waste my time trying to describe the incalculable amount of suffering and death that trying and actually achieving that goal would look like so ill just give you this instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

For all intents and purposes his bombing campaign served a sole purpose, an advertising vehicle for his manifesto. In the end that goal was achieved, im not sure if ted actually thought he could take down society with a few bombs he made out of scrap but im not going to lie, like terry A davis he was a genius that could accomplish impossible things who was completely deluded.
 
I don't care what you say, I admire the FBI, CIA, Army, Navy, Marines, the other one; all have better kill counts and attrocities that really get me hard in the pants for.

But seriously, why does it matter glowie?
 
He's too autistic for me.
+ hurting random people is not based.


You can have life or death rights (morally speaking for some ideologies) only over the most despicable individuals.
Most of the people he targeted did nothing wrong.


I will always respect you more if you kill your windmill rather than a donkey.
 
Back