"In paragraph 125 we used an analogy of a weak neighbor who is left destitute by a strong neighbor who takes all his land by forcing on him a series of compromises. But suppose now that the strong neighbor gets sick, so that he is unable to defend himself. The weak neighbor can force the strong one to give him his land back, or he can kill him. If he lets the strong man survive and only forces him to give the land back, he is a fool, because when the strong man gets well he will again take all the land for himself. The only sensible alternative for the weaker man is to kill the strong one while he has the chance. In the same way, while the industrial system is sick we must destroy it. If we compromise with it and let it recover from its sickness, it will eventually wipe out all of our freedom."
"In paragraph 125 we used an analogy of a weak neighbor who is left destitute by a strong neighbor who takes all his...
Based Uncle Ted
Ted was smart, but also a huge retard by thinking tech is responsible, while in reality it's the people who use given means wrong. People are and always will be the problem
What are you suggesting exactly
>people who use given means wrong.
There is no way to use "given means" wrong. You just mean used in a way that you don't like.
kys faggot
This.
I don't trust tranny ted
Did you actually read anything he wrote? He addresses this point and explains how technology forces itself to be used in particular ways, in quite a lot of detail.
Tech is used on a daily basis by those who don't even know how it works
You should KYS and do the world a favour by removing lesser intelligence genes from the circulation
His 170 IQ brain didn't think that like, just give them good goys the technology and things will be fine... woah...
Just separate the good tech from bad tech am i rite
That China is going to strike the USA with Tsunamis and Hypersonic Glide vehicles and will be seen as a liberator.
People who use technology don't mean to do wrong by society. The system itself encourages people to behave in those ways.
hey im not suggesting anything bro
Lol, nobody forces people to use the Devil's technology. I hope for a world of smart tech, and eco-fascist AIs.
>Tech is used on a daily basis by those who don't even know how it works
and even they are not using it "wrong" you absolute brainlet retard
I've read the whole manifesto over again multiple times, I've memorized it. He put too much faith in humanity and that's why no uprising happened even after he published his intellectual manifesto. People aren't intelligent, intelligence isn't what guides the public, false promises with gifts and threats from the unknown is what guides them.
Harry S. Truman was a dumb idiot not for bombing Nagasaki and Hirosihma, but for not understanding EXACTLY how atomic bombs work! We shouldn't have given Truman the atomy bombies before he growed intelligence and learneds nuclear physix...
this post will be jumped on because it breaks the conditioning tedposters (feds) want you to believe. I report all brit posters who promote ted btw. the board is constantly spammed with this guy, the method of entrapment is old as time
>let me mount a dildo on a power drill for my personal pleasure and the sheer friction in my anus is what guides me
>It's not using the tech wrong, it's innovation
Technology forces people to use it in order to be able to survive in a world dominated by it. Whenever the needs of human beings are in conflict with the needs of the technological infrastructure, the infrastructure's needs will always win. This holds good at every scale of resolution, from people balancing their own personal needs against the demands made on them by the technical mechanisms they depend on, to the level of the whole civilization. I really suggest you read Tedka before you try and have an opinion on the things he talked about. He's pretty meticulous in exhausting all possible counter-arguments and addressing them, so you would be able to discuss his views intelligently.
Ted Kaczynski never stated anywhere he believed a revolution was likely to occur because of his manifesto, or was likely at all. He stated the opposite. He only bothers because he thinks it's at least possible.
intelligence is what we need rite. thas why all intel people like kaczynski ideas? dumb public being dumb is what decides society not the elites.
u might be a midwit bro... no offense
if people started to revolt before the system starts to break down, of course people aren't going to buy into it. People like their shiny computers and cars and packaged food.
>NOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST USE TECHNOLOGY IN DANGEROUS AND DISGUSTING WAYS!!!! YOU'RE USING IT WRONG!!!!!
No they are using it to do what they want. The problem is that the technology exists at all.
technological tools are responsible because it justifies itself in perpetuity, thus enslaving humanity and turning us into the tools.
>entrapment
that word doesn't mean what you think it means
Ted also underestimated people's learning curve to adapt. It takes time to be able to figure out ther best use of the new tools at our disposal. Ted just took the new tools, screamed they were witchcraft, and wanted everything burned at the stake. Her panicked as opposed to keeping his cool and strategizing.
Here could have been a leader in some movement had her just created a fucking website and delivered his ideas instead of bombing people to get his shit published. He was really short sighted in that regard.
>never stated anywhere
>why release the manifesto in the first place
He didn't only think people would be intelligent enough to understand his manifesto, he also believed in a uprising, where people would return to more traditional ways and give up on tech.
He was wrong for thinking so, thus a retard
>inanimate objects have their own wills which they force upon sentient beings
> why release the manifesto in the first place
Because - as I stated previously and as you would know if you had read it - the possibility of a revolution was sufficient motivation for him, despite not thinking a revolution was probably.
Whether or not you've read him, you're clearly not capable of understanding what you read.
>just created a fucking website
>in the 1980s
implying people would listen to him if he wasnt the celebrity unabomber
So now you're agreeing with what I said before, but on top of that are insulting my ability to interpret his writings...
Really?
based
cringe
No, you're still wrong for calling Ted a "retard" because of your own misconstrued understanding of his motivations.
> insulting my ability to interpret
You ought to be insulted, and you ought to be ashamed. Your posts thinking is lazy at best, and your assertions are uniformly quite stupid.
>Ted just took the new tools, screamed they were witchcraft, and wanted everything burned at the stake.
confirmed for neverread
Since that are mostly psychos who desire power positions.
It ends that these means go in the hands of these psychopaths.
Avoiding technical progression means stripping those sociopaths the most dangerous tools they can hope for to enable pic related.
So yeah...the two things can't be separated.
you're funny, leaf
we rake you last
>It takes time to be able to figure out ther best use of the new tools at our disposal.
It's not about 'best use' but rather 'decision to use'. We are unable to resist new tools, and we will adopt them even knowing full well that they're far more likely to kill us than help us. This obsession, along with a focus on growth/endless production, is what drives us into slavery followed by extinction.
This. A world without organisation-reliant technology means said psychopaths could only fulfil their drives on much smaller scales.