why do people on this forum defend the unibomber

It started as a joke and is still mainly a joke, but with a lot of things with the image board adjacent internet, autists can't tell what jokes are and then start believing in dumb bullshit in a serious matter. I guess it's still kind of funny, but no his ideas were schzio babble and attacking computer store owners is autistic retard shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lowlife Adventures
Tsar Nicky said:
Mein Kampf is too verboten. I would pretty much have to spell it out for the normies because none of them will have any clue that I'm quoting it. Replacing "Jew" with something else might render good results, though. Also, don't tell me how to sneed, nigguh.
Click to expand...
The fact that it's forbidden is the point of doing it. Either go big or go home.
 
@mindlessobserver, can't quote your post but I think you're mostly correct but I have a bit of a different comparison to Marx. I agree with your divide between the critique and solutions in Marx but think Ted K doesn't even come close to the same level of critique. I think that much of the online popularity of the manifesto comes from those who haven't read it imagining the same level of detail and careful development put into the critique of "technology." It's nearly universal that there is something that at least feels soul destroying about the evolution of technology. For most people, their thoughts end at just that, vague feelings of alienation. If you find out that a super-duper genius wrote an taboo anti-technology book decades ago, it seems pretty natural for a fraction of those people to revere it. Anyone who actually reads it, I hope, finds that it's largely obvious things everyone has noticed with no particular insight. It reads like a college freshman term paper or a dormroom stoner's conversation.

1984 comparisons are rarely very insightful, but I think comparing Ted's manifesto to the Goldstein book in 1984 would be apt. This somewhat mythical book written by a brilliant man who synthesizes all of my angsts and problems into a cohesive whole.
 
Last edited:
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Flaming Insignias
the unibomber was a carefully crafted MKULTRA psyop

boomers can't shut the fuck up about him
 
If someone sent Mark Zucherberg a bomb package and he blew him to pieces after opening it that would be astronimically based.

People appreciate the intention but in practice the result would be some mailroom clerk who doesn't even wanna be there working that day would get his arms blown up and that is decidedly not based. Thats why that strategy sucks balls.

He put things in a very simple and elloquent manner which makes his manifesto remains quotable but the bombing part was very stupid and didn't ammount to shit.
 
AWizard said:
An extract:
Click to expand...
I forgot about that specific line, what I meant was a letter he wrote in the last few years, I would post an image of it, issue is finding specific letters from ted on the web isnt exactly easy, chances are ill run into it again months after this after this thread has been long forgotten. In summary he equated "ecofacism" to being a deviant branch of the left and described regular nazism and the like as "evil"

Ignoring that the quote you gave im almost inclined to agree but I think my perception has been coloured by growing up in the world left by neoconservativism. Reagan sew the seeds and young bush ruining everything he touched complete with the moral majority flailing around incoherently, all while being incapable of adapting to the changing world, see old gaurd conservatives in the last decade refusing to break from at this point ancient ideas as younger rightists slowly become increasingly unhinged. Maybe im interperting that quote wrong, at times trying to understand what ted meant feels more like trying to interpret a theological text, a dozen ways to read it and most of them would disgust the author.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back