Ted Kaczynski’s Manifesto Predicted The Catastrophe From Technology And Liberalism

Someone recently recommended I take a look at Ted Kaczynski’s Manifesto, stating that Kaczynski foresaw a lot of problems with modern culture that we write about here. After reading it, I have to agree that the “Unabomber” clearly understood what society was up against, a full decade before the development of the manosphere.

The media has done a good of painting Kaczynski as a deranged madman, but I found his writing to be clear and perceptive. His manifesto connected some loose dots I had between Neil Postman’s work, which described what we have lost through technology, and this community’s observations that the juggernaut of leftism is destroying what remains of traditional culture.

Kaczynski states that leftism and technology go hand in hand, because the collectivism and control that leftism requires cannot be accomplished without technology. The more advances we have with technology, the more it will be used to further progressivism, which includes a decrease in individual rights and an increase in authoritarian state control. I recommend you read the entirety of the manifesto here. In the meanwhile, the most important passages are below.

Introduction

The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.

[…]

This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.

The problems with leftists

When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities.

[…]

They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own.

[…]

Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle-to upper-middle-class families.

[…]

Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

[…]

Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization.

[…]

He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

[…]

Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

[…]

Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

[…]

Suppose you asked leftists to make a list of ALL the things that were wrong with society, and then suppose you instituted EVERY social change that they demanded. It is safe to say that within a couple of years the majority of leftists would find something new to complain about, some new social “evil” to correct because, once again, the leftist is motivated less by distress at society’s ills than by the need to satisfy his drive for power by imposing his solutions on society.

[…]

Leftism is collectivist; it seeks to bind together the entire world (both nature and the human race) into a unified whole. But this implies management of nature and of human life by organized society, and it requires advanced technology. You can’t have a united world without rapid transportation and communication, you can’t make all people love one another without sophisticated psychological techniques, you can’t have a “planned society” without the necessary technological base.

It’s important to note that he hated leftists enough that he mailed bombs to them, killing three.

The Power Process

Kaczynski describes the “power process” as achieving fulfillment by setting meaningful goals and then having the agency and autonomy to accomplish them. The problem with modern society, he argues, is that there are so many barriers to your own agency, ranging from leftist speech policies to overreaching governmental influence in your personal life, that we are not unencumbered to pursue simple tasks that improve our lives.

A hunter-gatherer in the past could kill his dinner, not only sating his hunger but also feeling pride for catching his meal, but the modern man cannot do the same thing without having to deal with multiple government agencies concerning the legality of his hunting and gun ownership status while fending off animal rights activists and other liberals who want to levy economic violence against him for wanting to kill an animal.

The result of ditching hunter-gatherer lifestyles is that we’re all pursuing “surrogate activities” that have no relation to our survival. Becoming a bodybuilder, international playboy, or dedicated hobbyist of some sort are surrogate activities that, had we had urgent survival needs, we would not pursue. Even my own passion, writing, is a surrogate activity. Kaczynski argues that surrogate activities are essentially make-work and will never lead to lasting fulfillment.

We divide human drives into three groups: (1) those drives that can be satisfied with minimal effort; (2) those that can be satisfied but only at the cost of serious effort; (3) those that cannot be adequately satisfied no matter how much effort one makes. The power process is the process of satisfying the drives of the second group. The more drives there are in the third group, the more there is frustration, anger, eventually defeatism, depression, etc.

[…]

Modern man must satisfy his need for the power process largely through pursuit of the artificial needs created by the advertising and marketing industry, and through surrogate activities.

[…]

Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one’s power.

[…]

…the pursuit of sex and love (for example) is not a surrogate activity, because most people, even if their existence were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they passed their lives without ever having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. (But pursuit of an excessive amount of sex, more than one really needs, can be a surrogate activity.)

Kaczynski predicted my own growing discontent in accumulating notches and flags. I was pursuing sex above my physical or psychological need, so I soon found it to be empty, the last stop of most surrogate activities.

…people who are deeply involved in surrogate activities are never satisfied, never at rest. Thus the money-maker constantly strives for more and more wealth. The scientist no sooner solves one problem than he moves on to the next. The long-distance runner drives himself to run always farther and faster. Many people who pursue surrogate activities will say that they get far more fulfillment from these activities than they do from the “mundane” business of satisfying their biological needs, but that is because in our society the effort needed to satisfy the biological needs has been reduced to triviality.

Because in modern society a man cannot build his house, marry a wife, and have children without disruptive state or cultural interference, becoming a playboy is a more logical alternative, satisfying his power process need to a degree, but it eventually becomes a dead-end since it has no purpose when compared to raising and feeding a family free of outside control, which today can be quite impossible.

What makes us FEEL secure is not so much objective security as a sense of confidence in our ability to take care of ourselves. Primitive man, threatened by a fierce animal or by hunger, can fight in self-defense or travel in search of food. He has no certainty of success in these efforts, but he is by no means helpless against the things that threaten him. The modern individual on the other hand is threatened by many things against which he is helpless: nuclear accidents, carcinogens in food, environmental pollution, war, increasing taxes, invasion of his privacy by large organizations, nationwide social or economic phenomena that may disrupt his way of life.

Today’s man is also under threat to denouncers in his workplace and internet mobs that are itching to ruin the employment of someone who doesn’t follow mainstream groupthink.

Social problems

We are given choice in trivial matters such as what clothing to wear, what Hollywood-produced entertainment to watch, what job we labor it, and which presidential candidate to choose, but when it comes to matters that scratch at the heels of those who have power or that come at strengthening the masculinity of men, you hit roadblocks put up by the system or by useful idiots of the system.

Modern society is in certain respects extremely permissive. In matters that are irrelevant to the functioning of the system we can generally do what we please. We can believe in any religion we like (as long as it does not encourage behavior that is dangerous to the system). We can go to bed with anyone we like (as long as we practice “safe sex”). We can do anything we like as long as it is UNIMPORTANT. But in all IMPORTANT matters the system tends increasingly to regulate our behavior.

[…]

The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

[…]

In modern society an individual’s loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.

[…]

The Industrial Revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different. The technophiles are hopelessly naive (or self-deceiving) in their understanding of social problems. They are unaware of (or choose to ignore) the fact that when large changes, even seemingly beneficial ones, are introduced into a society, they lead to a long sequence of other changes, most of which are impossible to predict. The result is disruption of the society. So it is very probable that in their attempts to end poverty and disease, engineer docile, happy personalities and so forth, the technophiles will create social systems that are terribly troubled, even more so than the present once.

Primitive man

There is good reason to believe that primitive man suffered from less stress and frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life than modern man is.

[…]

In primitive societies life is a succession of stages. The needs and purposes of one stage having been fulfilled, there is no particular reluctance about passing on to the next stage. A young man goes through the power process by becoming a hunter, hunting not for sport or for fulfillment but to get meat that is necessary for food. This phase having been successfully passed through, the young man has no reluctance about settling down to the responsibilities of raising a family. (In contrast, some modern people indefinitely postpone having children because they are too busy seeking some kind of “fulfillment.” We suggest that the fulfillment they need is adequate experience of the power process—with real goals instead of the artificial goals of surrogate activities.) Again, having successfully raised his children, going through the power process by providing them with the physical necessities, the primitive man feels that his work is done and he is prepared to accept old age (if he survives that long) and death.

[…]

[Modern people] are disturbed by the prospect of physical deterioration and death, as is shown by the amount of effort they expend trying to maintain their physical condition, appearance and health. It is not the primitive man, who has used his body daily for practical purposes, who fears the deterioration of age, but the modern man, who has never had a practical use for his body beyond walking from his car to his house. It is the man whose need for the power process has been satisfied during his life who is best prepared to accept the end of that life.

Freedom

Freedom means being in control (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) of the life-and-death issues of one’s existence; food, clothing, shelter and defense against whatever threats there may be in one’s environment. Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one’s own life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently, tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised. It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness.

[…]

It is said that we live in a free society because we have a certain number of constitutionally guaranteed rights. But these are not as important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of government.

After learning about his background and reading his manifesto, it’s clear that Kaczynski is a hyper-intelligent man who chose the wrong solution to the same set of problems you have probably already realized in one form or another. He mentioned that his manifesto would be read more because of the killings he did, and while it was noticed when it was published back in 1995, we can argue that it had no sizable cultural effect in the proceeding 20 years. As he mentioned, the structure of society is such that ideas dangerous to the ruling elite will not make it far, no matter how people you kill, and this is confirmed by the more recent political murder spree of Anders Breivik in Norway that has achieved nothing to change the political leanings of that small nation.

What I found interesting is that Kaczynski arrived at many of the exact same societal conclusions we have, not through sex but through the mechanisms of working in a university and living in the woods. As I’ve mentioned in the past, there are many paths to arriving at the truth, and we are starting to see triangulation from men living vastly different lives that modern leftism and rapid technological change have detrimental effects that are annihilating the fabric of society. While I don’t entirely know how to solve the problems we face, I do know that taking the Kaczynski and Breivik route is not the answer, judging by the complete failure of their actions to make a difference to the system.

It’s too bad of the path that Kaczynski took, because he was obviously a skilled thinker and writer, and could have made a more positive difference in the world had he been more patient and persistent in spreading his written ideas.

Human behavior is molded for the system

The system HAS TO regulate human behavior closely in order to function. At work people have to do what they are told to do, otherwise production would be thrown into chaos. Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. To allow any substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats would disrupt the system and lead to charges of unfairness due to differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercised their discretion.

[…]

The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior. For example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and engineers. It can’t function without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to excel in these fields. It isn’t natural for an adolescent human being to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study. A normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact with the real world. Among primitive peoples the things that children are trained to do tend to be in reasonable harmony with natural human impulses.

[…]

It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity. and for good reason: If human needs were put before technical necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of “mental health” in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress.

[…]

…all these technical advances taken together have created a world in which the average man’s fate is no longer in his own hands or in the hands of his neighbors and friends, but in those of politicians, corporation executives and remote, anonymous technicians and bureaucrats whom he as an individual has no power to influence.

[…]

…antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual’s internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable.

[…]

In the future, social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human being will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system.

Human over-dependence on technology

When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.

[…]

…technological progress marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, so that they can never again do without it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system today if computers, for example, were eliminated.) Thus the system can move in only one direction, toward greater technologization. Technology repeatedly forces freedom to take a step back, but technology can never take a step back—short of the overthrow of the whole technological system.

[…]

History shows that all social arrangements are transitory; they all change or break down eventually. But technological advances are permanent within the context of a given civilization.

[…]

As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and as machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more and more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.

[…]

On those who are employed, ever-increasing demands will be placed: They will need more and more training, more and more ability, and will have to be ever more reliable, conforming and docile, because they will be more and more like cells of a giant organism. Their tasks will be increasingly specialized, so that their work will be, in a sense, out of touch with the real world, being concentrated on one tiny slice of reality. The system will have to use any means that it can, whether psychological or biological, to engineer people to be docile, to have the abilities that the system requires and to “sublimate” their drive for power into some specialized task.

You will be forced to constantly adapt your skill set to the needs of the system as technology advances, regardless of what you want. If you fail to adapt, you will suffer economic impoverishment, even if the adaption requires you to go away from your human nature.

Technology also allows the elite to reduce their dependence on humans to maintain their goal of absolute control:

…control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite—just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity.

The function of entertainment

The entertainment industry serves as an important psychological tool of the system, possibly even when it is dishing out large amounts of sex and violence. Entertainment provides modern man with an essential means of escape. While absorbed in television, videos, etc., he can forget stress, anxiety, frustration, dissatisfaction. Many primitive peoples, when they don’t have work to do, are quite content to sit for hours at a time doing nothing at all, because they are at peace with themselves and their world. But most modern people must be constantly occupied or entertained, otherwise they get “bored,” i.e., they get fidgety, uneasy, irritable.

[…]

…an individual whose attitudes or behavior bring him into conflict with the system is up against a force that is too powerful for him to conquer or escape from, hence he is likely to suffer from stress, frustration, defeat. His path will be much easier if he thinks and behaves as the system requires. In that sense the system is acting for the benefit of the individual when it brainwashes him into conformity.

[…]

Our use of mass entertainment is “optional”: No law requires us to watch television, listen to the radio, read magazines. Yet mass entertainment is a means of escape and stress-reduction on which most of us have become dependent. Everyone complains about the trashiness of television, but almost everyone watches it. A few have kicked the TV habit, but it would be a rare person who could get along today without using ANY form of mass entertainment.

Destroying the system

Kaczynski believes the only way to solve the problem is to go back to a pre-Industrial Revolution way of living. He argues that anything else would leave the technological and industrial systems in place, allowing them to be brought back to life in the future to resume controlling humanity. Any temporary setback to the system would be easily overcome as long as the system infrastructure remains.

The mechanism through which he believes this can be done is through environmentalism, but here he makes a grave error because the elites have hijacked environmentalism through the “global warming” scare to promote their UN-driven depopulation agenda (often termed “population control” or “sustainable development”). They have taken the global warming issue and used it as a tool for them to achieve their umbrella agenda: human control.

Will public resistance prevent the introduction of technological control of human behavior? It certainly would if an attempt were made to introduce such control all at once. But since technological control will be introduced through a long sequence of small advances, there will be no rational and effective public resistance.

[…]

Even if changes large enough to make a lasting difference were initiated, they would be retracted when their disruptive effects became apparent. Thus, permanent changes in favor of freedom could be brought about only by persons prepared to accept radical, dangerous and unpredictable alteration of the entire system. In other words by revolutionaries, not reformers.

[…]

It appears that during the next several decades the industrial-technological system will be undergoing severe stresses due to economic and environmental problems, and especially due to problems of human behavior (alienation, rebellion, hostility, a variety of social and psychological difficulties). We hope that the stresses through which the system is likely to pass will cause it to break down, or at least will weaken it sufficiently so that a revolution against it becomes possible. If such a revolution occurs and is successful, then at that particular moment the aspiration for freedom will have proved more powerful than technology.

[…]

…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.

Costs of destroying the system

If the breakdown is sudden, many people will die, since the world’s population has become so overblown that it cannot even feed itself any longer without advanced technology. Even if the breakdown is gradual enough so that reduction of the population can occur more through lowering of the birth rate than through elevation of the death rate, the process of de-industrialization probably will be very chaotic and involve much suffering. It is naive to think it likely that technology can be phased out in a smoothly managed, orderly way, especially since the technophiles will fight stubbornly at every step. Is it therefore cruel to work for the breakdown of the system? Maybe, but maybe not. In the first place, revolutionaries will not be able to break the system down unless it is already in enough trouble so that there would be a good chance of its eventually breaking down by itself anyway; and the bigger the system grows, the more disastrous the consequences of its breakdown will be; so it may be that revolutionaries, by hastening the onset of the breakdown, will be reducing the extent of the disaster.

History is not made by the majority

History is made by active, determined minorities, not by the majority, which seldom has a clear and consistent idea of what it really wants. Until the time comes for the final push toward revolution, the task of revolutionaries will be less to win the shallow support of the majority than to build a small core of deeply committed people. As for the majority, it will be enough to make them aware of the existence of the new ideology and remind them of it frequently; though of course it will be desirable to get majority support to the extent that this can be done without weakening the core of seriously committed people.

[…]

…the revolutionaries should not try to acquire political power until the system has gotten itself into such a mess that any hardships will be seen as resulting from the failures of the industrial system itself and not from the policies of the revolutionaries. The revolution against technology will probably have to be a revolution by outsiders, a revolution from below and not from above.

[…]

To many of us, freedom and dignity are more important than a long life or avoidance of physical pain. Besides, we all have to die some time, and it may be better to die fighting for survival, or for a cause, than to live a long but empty and purposeless life.

Conclusion

Kaczynski’s manifesto made me realize that the solutions I have proposed to improve modern society would not stem the tide of advances in technology and leftist degeneracy. By the time we identify one problem, isolate it, and solve it, more degenerate leftist causes would have been pushed down our throats alongside technological advances that make our counter-movement all seem fruitless. Up to this point, we’re hacking at little branches, especially when we attack the useful idiots in the form of individual feminists and social justice warriors, while the roots of evil are becoming ever stronger.

As long as the system is in place, any victory we achieve will only be short-term in scope. Such a victory could last a couple generations, but once the dust settles and the globalists re-gather their footing, they will use the existing technological, industrial, and banking frameworks to not only gain what they lost, but learn from their past mistakes and control humanity even tighter.

The question we must ask ourselves before proceeding is if we want the system to die or not. Kaczynski suggests that it is all or nothing, and assuming he’s right, we either have to get ready to throw away urban living, industrialization, and virtually all technology, or be reduced to putting out small fires that don’t begin to reverse a worldwide societal decline. As a man who has never lived in a rural setting, I remain undecided about how best to continue.

In spite of my hesitation to hop on board with Kaczynski’s message that the entire system must be destroyed, I am convinced that as long as it’s in place, we will continue to see a neverending drive towards authoritarian liberalism and parasitic globalism that erodes national sovereignty and our individual humanity. A worldwide economic collapse may temporarily bruise the elite and usher in a mini-age of traditionalism, but once the world recovers, they’ll likely resume right where they left off.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh’s book Free Speech Isn’t Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Read Next: How America’s New Nobility Has Forgotten Its Obligation To The Country

327 thoughts on “Ted Kaczynski’s Manifesto Predicted The Catastrophe From Technology And Liberalism”

  1. Kaczynski is still a nut – for thinking that putting bombs in the mail is going to change anything or get people to take his writing seriously.

    1. True, but what I think the message that Roosh was trying to get across was just because someone might have been a terrible person, that doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t have any good points.
      We see this on a smaller scale in day-to-day life. People of different beliefs (including atheists) automatically discount people from other groups simply because of what they believe. They will ignore the actual credible point being made and just say “You’re just an ignorant XYZ.” Same thing applies with politics.

    2. I’m pretty sure the latter is exactly what he accomplished. No person raised with judeo-christian values agrees with murder as a means to an end, but weather we like it or not, it did get his message out, and with emphasis.

        1. Yeah, it’s an easy tell. That and having a brand spanking new account with only two posts.

        2. So basically you are looking to pick a fight, it appears. Not going to indulge you on this. We can converse about the topic of the article as civil men, or we can not communicate. I have no use for your passive aggressiveness.

        3. Relax I was just making a joke.
          Why do you dish it but don’t like to eat it chef?
          I though I lost all credibility way back anywayz brah?

        4. On the previous topic we were discussing, you did clearly lose credibility. This is a new topic. Your credibility is yours to make or lose on this particular topic.

        5. What kills me is the people uber-obsessed with credit, to the point where they are afraid to even use their credit to help them. “Don’t check my credit, it will lower my ‘score’!” Well, whats the purpose in having credit in the first place, dumb bitch!

        6. It’s mad, credit has become a skill all of it’s self.
          Where I come from, poor people only survive if they know how to work with credit.
          But with a fiat currency, it’s all credit anyway.

      1. Yes just wow, it’s my attempt at Modernism by using one word in capitals to convey my gratitude for the article and the information contained in Ted Kaczynskis’s manifesto.

  2. To blame technology is absurd.
    For one thing, it is unstoppable.
    Secondly, it has created a lot more wealth (it is fashionable here to think that the 1920s or 1950s were better than today, but they were not).
    The real problem is female suffrage and woman-worship.

    1. Explaining the cause of something is not the same thing as “blaming” it. Technology has caused the problems of today. That doesn’t mean we should all abandon technology. It is a choice we must make.

      1. More appropriately put, I think, our choices as individuals on how to utilize technologies have caused today’s problems. Technology is not a lone actor, individuals have to choose to use it, for good or ill. And almost all of today’s good comes from technology too, for precisely the same reason.

    2. I don’t think Roosh is talking in absolutes. I think (as if anyone cares), that technology makes it easier to control and monitor people. How many people use the “location” feature on their telephone? I always make sure mine is off unless I absolutely need it. How many people have their self-worth tied up in Facebook or Twitter accounts? The fact that you and I are not controlled by technology does not make what I think less true.

    3. Technology got better and medicine got a little bit better.
      BUT…
      Economy got way worse and society went to hell.
      A man in the 1950s was able to earn enough money for himself, a wife and up to 5 children easily (with an average job). Today, only the big earners can do this.
      Also, no feminists, no fags and no vegans (with few exceptions) in the old days. For me this sounds like El Dorado.
      Conclusion:
      It’s worse today than it was in the 50s.

      1. Economy got way worse
        Completely false. I can tell that you have never looked at GDP stats in your life.
        It’s worse today than it was in the 50s.
        False again. What about blacks being under Jim Crow?
        Roosh himself had a vastly better article called 1955 vs. 2015, that illuminates all the disadvantages of the 1950s that you are ignoring.
        Plus, your view is US-centric. You have to look at world GDP. China is vastly better than it was in 1995, let alone 1955.

        1. China’s probably not the example you want to use, I’ve heard that their economy is tanking hard. In fact it was the reason for the last big stock panic a few months ago I believe.

        2. You mean economic collapse? It does seem rather unavoidable, if so. This level of debt, based on fiat currency with no basis in reality, is utterly unsustainable in the long term. If that’s not what you meant then I misunderstood and then ask “What did you mean?”, heh.

        3. “I can tell that you have never looked at GDP stats in your life.”
          A lower GDP doesn’t mean people had less money to spend. Everything was cheaper. You can’t seriously compare a booming post war economy with our shitty economy today.
          “What about blacks being under Jim Crow?”
          What about racial conflicts and problems today? Worse.
          “China is vastly better than it was in 1995, let alone 1955.”
          China was a shithole back then and it’s still a shithole. I don’t care about their super economy. Most chinese people still live in the dirt.

        4. Oh I meant economic collapse.
          And my sources tell me it’s going to be apocalyptic. We may all find ourselves regressed after all…

        5. Rice is awful, short shelf life in bulk. Grains like white and red wheat berries on the other hand are invaluable and last forever, properly prepared and stored. Throw in a hand grinder and make a nice stone oven (easy enough) and you’ll be in bread for decades. Plant your backyard with heirloom seeds, harvest food and preserve food and eventually you won’t have to worry about emergency supplies.
          Always strikes me as odd that so many people put away some food for hard times because they think it’s all going to end, but fail to put away heirloom seeds. That food supply runs out in a year and you don’t have heirloom crops you’re as dead as your neighbor, only a year later.

        6. Everything I’ve ever read says white rice lasts basically forever if stored properly. Totally agree on the heirloom seeds. Getting my veggies and fruits going next year what little space I have out back. Whole lot sites on 1/3 of an acre so the back yard is probably half that.

        7. I was thinking of brown rice, my bad.. Its oils go rancid fast, basically 2 years or less. Regular ol’ white rice on the other hand has very little nutritional value, outside of fiber, but yeah, it stores.

        8. True, but it makes a great filler with other foods like beans and vegetables. Nutrition is only part of the story; you have to look at things like morale too.
          On a side note, how can you tell if seeds are heirloom or not? Do they say “heirloom” on the packets or what?

        9. It’s an easy research on heirlooms, there are lots of seed heirloom varieties that are known across the States, and reputable sellers that will set you up with starter seeds. I don’t know if they’re necessarily going to say “heirloom” on the packet, but they will have the variety on the packet that you can use to confirm. You can order a couple of packets of a given variety, then plant one packet one year, harvest and replant the seeds the next year. If they are not dork-ified and weak or weird looking (hybrids) you’re golden.
          Actually rice combined with black beans (and other kinds of similar beans) makes a complete protein, so you’re right. I’m just not fond of a lot of rice, although it is good with Chinese food and in stuffed peppers, heh.

        10. ‘Completely false. I can tell that you have never looked at GDP stats in your life.’
          The last 40-50 years of making debt-based consumption spending the foundation of the economy has rendered the GDP statistic an increasingly poor metric of our economic health.
          GDP has risen not because the economy consistently churns out better goods, or more goods at cheaper prices, but because the goods are sold at continually higher prices, enabled by continuing to expand credit. The last few quarters of growth have been driven by healthcare spending, and that is because premiums have risen. In other words, people are paying more for the same/worse care, yet because the raw sales figures are higher, GDP rises. The reality is that people are worse off.
          Paying for college by waiting tables in the summer, then affording a wife, kids and house with little debt and the chance to build savings > Being in debt slavery from the moment you turn 18. The higher GDP in the second scenario means sweet fuck all to those in massive debt.
          ‘False again. What about blacks being under Jim Crow?’
          Blacks under Jim Crow were in a better situation than they were just a couple generations earlier under slavery. As a class, when they were freed, they were uneducated and extremely poor. After spending hundreds of years as slaves, it was always going to take multiple generations for blacks to build themselves up as free men.
          This is not to say that Jim Crow was great, there was a lot of discrimination and so forth, but blacks were ‘on the right track’ so to say. Their unemployment rates were similar to whites, albeit in lower paying jobs. They had much stronger family units, with out of wedlock births happening at similar rates to whites.
          Then the SJWs of the 60s stepped in and replaced the black father with government handouts, and the destruction of the black community followed. Who knows what would have happened if blacks didn’t get a ‘helping hand’ from the government? It is likely that the trajectory from slavery to Jim Crow would have continued and blacks would be in a much better place than they are now instead of stuck in a single mother supervised ghetto wasteland.
          If we’re so progressive and advanced as a society as we like to claim, we should be able to understand that just because we’d rather live in the present moment, it doesn’t mean that there are things from the past that worked well, and will continue to work well in our current society.

        11. Um…. they are still registering 7% GDP growth. The ‘tanking’ is that they have come down from 9% to 7%.
          Again, a lot of you have never looked at GDP and/or Human Development stats. Life expectancy stats, etc. are other things to look at.

        12. China was a shithole back then and it’s still a shithole.
          That is a weak dodge. The topic of discussion is whether their prosperity has risen since 1955 or even 1995. It has.
          Do try to keep up.

        13. Well I can’t give names because that would not seem appropriate. Books are being written.
          There are many tho, I have a guy who’s a freak mathematician and veteran trader. They tell me everything is lining up and it’s so obvious it can only be a ‘conspiracy’ that everybody doesn’t know already, but I have noticed it spill over into the mainstream more lately.
          This one is either going to be apocalyptic or will send us running into the arms of our would be one world government. Not sure what one is worse. Latter probably in the long run.
          My really reliable source reckons he is the only person who can say the exact day everyone wants to be out of whatever they are into but they do not have it right now – it’s zoning in based on some crazy algorithm software they have developed or something to that tune.
          It doesn’t need advanced techniques to be clear tho – the combination of fiat currency, debt being the new cash and globalism all give a good common sense idea as to what will happen. It’s how bad it will be that I think will surprise many.

        14. Yes, GDP reflects more than anything the high cost of living today. A better metric is PPP – purchasing power parity–basically the cost of living ie I have to work 25 hours a week to pay for housing, food, and clothing in a certain society, given the average costs in local currency of housing, food, and clothing, and median wage in that same currency.
          When the USA GDP “only” “grows” 2.4% in a year (2014) despite the government printing money like mad, quantitative easing, government purchase of assets, and the growth in the M3 money supply of 5%, you realize how poor its economy actually is.

        15. ” I don’t care about their super economy. Most chinese people still live in the dirt”
          Good point. Something else that seems to be oblivious to so many people is that China, with all of its great international economic growth still operates under a communist charter. That means that ay any given moment, the current Mao Tse Dung who is in power has the legal right to seize everything instantly.

        16. I’m told this year. Not sure they have that specific day yet but he says they will have a weeks advance notice…
          Even Ron Paul is warning people lol.
          I’m told that Gold might not be as useful as is often thought with the coming change to our life styles.

        17. Yes.
          And their prediction grows increasingly closer…
          Obama will do everything in his power to kick it down the line out of his term so we’ll see, but Bush tried and failed in 08…
          War on the horizon could play who knows what role.
          Many see China’s recent activity as a strategic separation from the Dollar in anticipation.
          But all of the key inevitability markers have been met this is known and discussed even on some mainstream channels.

    4. The idea is that technology begets wealth, wealth begets comfort, comfort begets emotionalism, which leads to irrational ideologies like egalitarianism. So a rougher society is less likely to consider female suffrage.
      Not that we should abandon technology altogether – the solution to social regression in affluent countries must be ideological in nature

    5. A lot of our most advanced technology stands on the back of very primitive tech. As we run out of resources it will be difficult to keep this up.

  3. Roosh:The more advances we have with technology, the more it will be used to further progressivism, which includes a decrease in individual rights and an increase in authoritarian state control
    I have come lately to agree with the ideas you discuss in your article on how unrestrained freedom is bad for most men and women. Was it the massive individual rights which led America to be at the forefront of feminism? I think that’s a strong liklihood. All the focus on individual rights and individualism is a root cause for degeneracy. But perhaps this is merely a case of both progressivism and fascism being bad for different reasons.
    They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization.
    There is some hypocricy here with what Ted is saying. Yes, perhaps critics put too much emphasis on a certain issue, but if it’s a real and valid criticism, then I welcome it. I don’t really care if pollution is worse in China–that doesn’t make me OK with Monsanto dumping chemicals into my lake. The hypocricy is Ted chose to focus on the problems and weaknesses of western society instead of enjoying the decline, leaving for a more traditional society, or just traveling and banging women. Instead he fixhated on his issues and murdered people.
    the leftist is motivated less by distress at society’s ills than by the need to satisfy his drive for power by imposing his solutions on society
    Absolutely true. My views on gay marriage have changed. I understand some people are gay, and that’s a fact, and ok just let them be able to have the same benefits a normal couple does. But then I saw that along with that came Bruce Jenner, drunk sex = rape, and politically correct language, and I realize it’s not about any one issue, it’s about the drive for power and control.
    Concerning surrugate activities, this has me thinking about what if my talents, and those of others, could be combined to do something really great. To coordinate a successful manned moon mission. To construct a Brandenburg Gate. To invent a new source of energy. To build a massive pyramid. Crafting a declaration of independence, or of human rights. Constructing a new transportation system. Inventing a new space vehicle. All these things take leadership. We have not had a leader in my lifetime attempt to do anything great. Even if it is just a symbolic monument. Make or do something great. What is the point of having a president if not to lead us together towards something magnificent? In Ted’s words, America has power but not goals.
    We can do anything we like as long as it is UNIMPORTANT. But in all IMPORTANT matters the system tends increasingly to regulate our behavior
    This 100%. Craig B Hulet says this all the time, mostly focused on politics (he says we will get Clinton v Bush and it won’t matter who wins.. the polls showing Bush is at 1% don’t matter because they are polling voters and voters don’t decide elections, the money and power and the political parties do).
    The degree of personal freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of government
    The answer to all the “but we are the free-est best-est country in the world” nonsense. Absolutely true!
    I think Ted could have been a great speaker and debater, and should have worked more to get his ideas out through tv, speeches, and “Ted Talks”. He mentions that it is impossible to move backwards, so what was the point in fighting through violence? Become a philosopher and try to save the less “advanced” societies in the world before they fall into the same trap.
    His talks of molding human behavior because of our needs for scientists, engineers, food production, etc. are interesting considering that AI could take over much of this. As he mentions, there will be unforeseeable problems which will be introduced with AI, as well, but it seems like a big solution to this issue.

    1. Individualism is not the same thing as atomism, and need not necessarily lead to it. Atomism is what the Left created once they rejected actual stoic rugged individualism. Many to most of us are not atomists. It’s not a necessary condition, and too much “freedom” didn’t create it.

    2. Do you have the link to or remember the title of that article about unrestrained freedom? I remember it but I want to read it again.

  4. You know a society and its people aren’t worth shit when the acts of killing people (unabomber, Breivik) and also suicide like in the case of Dominique Veneer do not rouse the people to bat an eyelash or lend one overstimulated ear to listen to what they are saying.
    But some disgusting tranny wants to mutilate himself or some man publicly admits he likes to fuck/get fucked by other men in the ass…
    OMG HERO!
    Fuck this gay earth. I completely feel vindicated when I act in ways that do not conform or aid to prop up this toilet bowl society.
    If society makes us into something that is fundamentally different from ourselves biologically or otherwise, we have no reason unless fear to support it.
    Fuck living in fear.

  5. I absolutely agree with Ted on this (below). The way I put it is suppose you give every person $70,000 for the year. There will still be people who invest wisely, use that money wisely and some who will blow it all away. There will always be a problem somewhere. What leftists want (and what the modern day Republican want as well) is power.
    Suppose you asked leftists to make a list of ALL the things that were wrong with society, and then suppose you instituted EVERY social change that they demanded. It is safe to say that within a couple of years the majority of leftists would find something new to complain about, some new social “evil” to correct because, once again, the leftist is motivated less by distress at society’s ills than by the need to satisfy his drive for power by imposing his solutions on society.

    1. I have had the same thoughts before, especially regarding the $70,000. I say the government gives everyone $100,000, a Dave Ramsey Financial Freedom book and says “You’re on your own from here on! No more welfare!” If you can’t make it with 100K and the only tools you need to stay out of debt, you don’t deserve welfare.

      1. Ironically, those in government absolutely know that giving a person $100,000 once in their lifetime will not fix the problem. What those in government would rather do is give someone $15,000/year and then say vote for us and next year we will give you $16,000.

        1. Agreed. I know without a doubt we could give every family in America $1 million each and their would still be broke blokes within the same generation. My suggestion isn’t so much to fix the problem (since it’s a human flaw that some never overcome), but to wash the govt’s hands of welfare and give no one an excuse for why they’re broke as a joke.

        2. It’s called, “The Pareto Principle.” The 80/20 Rule.
          On a long enough timeline, 80% of the wealth will wind up in the hands of 20% of the people.

        3. Or pay themselves more in retirement than they ‘earned’ in their working career. (see cops, firefighters, government employees et al)
          Of course all paid for by us, at the point of a gun.
          Try not paying and see how long it takes before armed men show up demanding payment. Resist.
          Fight back? Get tased and beaten, possibly shot.
          Use a firearm? That will be your last day on Earth.
          It’s all about force guys.
          They use it every day to steal from us. To transfer our hard earned money to those in their favor. We don’t have a say in how much they take or where it gets spent.
          We who pay taxes are the modern slaves.
          Enslaved by bankers, government, corporations, and welfare recipients of every stripe (from General Dynamics to Shaniqua).

    2. … That’s why they call themselves progressives. If they stop their insane march their ball game stalls

  6. This is one of the most eye opening posts I’ve ever read in
    my life. Many will discount the above passages because of whom originated these ideas. But I challenge you to really think about
    what he says, not what he did to convey his message. These are issues I’ve long known to be a plague. Social Media, the entertainment industry, and the Mass Media was always my focus as to why the rapid decay we’ve seen culminate over the past 15 years, but that was just a small piece – it’s technology in general; a much broader scope.
    While I love technology and the luxuries it affords me such as the
    ability of using the internet to gain knowledge, access like-minded individuals such as ROK, planes to travel, cars to move about locally, bars to drink and tell stories, TV to entertain myself from time to time – generally I’m always looking for more. As I sit here in the same cubicle for the last 9 and half years I’ve realized it’s not boredom that makes me depressed, it’s the actual lack of “living” found in a 9-5 job. My dreams are made up of exploring the world,
    when I’m sure if I had the means to travel and explore that too would bore me eventually. Your job grants you the
    ability to eat, some form of entertainment, sleep, and then repeat. A true groundhogs day for the masses. The psychological damage is so apparent I disappointed in myself that I couldn’t put the pieces together myself. I don’t know what the answer is, but I have seriously yearned the idea of living by a lake in say a Tennessee setting farming and living off the land raising a family like little house on the prairie (I more
    than likely would die after the first winter). But living in my urban world for 30+ years can I really ever pull myself out? Doubtful. M. Night Shyamalan’s movie “The Village” comes to mind. I will seriously be thinking about this post for quite some time. Very thought provoking.

    1. I think those feelings of disenchantment we all experience with aspects of the urban-modernity conveyor belt matrix relates an estrangement we experience from the natural world. The price of living in a safe, comfortable world is the complete submergence of our natural healthy instincts- like knowing how to navigate across terrain by using your senses, knowing how to hunt and fish, being able to read the weather and the seasons, especially if you’re a man. I’m convinced that these feelings of guilt and longing for wide open spaces come to the surface in men from that ancient part of ourselves that has to ruthlessly suppressed by our civilized self. The natural world is unpredictable and often wild and indifferent to the laws and conventions of man made society. It’s essentially free in a way we’ll never be, and, I think we find that deeply appealing in comparison to the planned and controlled strictures of the urban conveyor belt matrix where many are moved along like boxes, until we fall off aged 80.

    2. Amen to your post, Durty. I’m currently working 9 to 5 for a billionaire CEO; I come in, do a little busy work here and there, tolerate the political bullshit/games, and watch adult men go on the same fast food lunch schedule every single week. College and its subsequent debt were mistakes that gnaw hard at my core. Swallowing the red pill makes the last 12 years of my life (almost 31 now) seem like such a sham–getting beyond that pain is the next step. I too yearn for something greater. Even when I’m on top of my shit–good diet, weights, laying off porn, weed and other slothful habits–I still get that urge to explore. Something is missing.
      A nice little house by the lake or farming sound like a dream. The isolation might be a little tough to take but it would be a nice change of pace. Hopefully you can pull yourself out of the groundhog day routine and live the way you desire.

  7. But most modern people must be constantly occupied or entertained, otherwise they get “bored,” i.e., they get fidgety, uneasy, irritable.

    This pretty much describes many modern women, with all their pointless talking, texting, status updating on social media, shopping and traveling.

  8. If you want advice on Social Activism, I recommend Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinsky. He was a left wing activist who was very successful. I’d also recommend reading about Mao’s terrorist insurgency in China for how to sway the minds of entire populations.
    I don’t agree with either of these men, but we should always be aware of how the enemy won when we failed.

  9. I suspect The Martian resonates with people because Matt Damon’s character has to solve physical survival problems by using his own abilities applied to the scanty resources at his disposal. He doesn’t have to answer to authority figures, he doesn’t have to guard his speech and actions around others out of fear that he might “trigger” them, and he sees tangible results from the efforts of his mind and his hands. Think of Mark Watney as Ted Kaczynski on Mars.

  10. Provocative article and a good one. Although Kaczynski is a monster nonetheless. We can learn a lot, sometimes, from our mass murders. You’d think that our excessively open minded “progressives” would attempt to do this, but they don’t, so, whats’ that tell you? Take Columbine for instance. Was it “guns” and by extension the absence of a ban on guns? Or, was it petty consumer culture spiked with violent video games?
    I don’t agree that technology leads to liberalism, although, I can see how its easy to fall for this. Technology doesn’t lead to progressivism. Progressivism leads to progressivism and progressivism in all its “glory” to include perverted sex etc existed well before the information age and even the industrial age. What convinces me is that if technology is the driving force then progressives would not have had to rely, intrinsically, on all the illegitimate, un-constitutional or extra-constitutional actions it took, which inherently depended upon other nasty things such as coercion, intimidation and lying..indeed, to summarize, flat-out treachery. Technology without the treachery of progressivism would just make our day to day lives better as it has.
    That being said, there is no denying that technology impacts our lives. However, what I’m beginning to observe is that its actually, apropos to Kaczynski, driving large portions of society insane. Simply, its stimulus overload and for those among us who aren’t able to process all this, the result is predictable in that its driving them nuts.

  11. Outside of the obvious problem of him being a murderer, he also seems to confuse “force” with “desire”. I am not forced to get the latest technology, for example, nothing becomes absolutely essential to me that I must be “forced” to purchase it. Do I have an iPhone or equivalent even though the rest of the world apparently does? No. Dependency, which is a form of psychological force (if you will) is also not necessary. I gave up television long before it was cool to do so, haven’t looked back. Some days, when I’m alone with nothing to do, I sit on the deck and read a book if it’s a particularly nice day or, even as he so suggests, stare at the horizon and just think. Yet entertainment is around me at all turns, nevertheless I retain complete control. He avoids giving the individual actual agency over his own life in many cases, which is a fatal error, and one that the Leftists he despise also indulge in.
    Forced to get latest tech – Hell no
    Dependent on entertainment – No
    Forced to work at a company and make
    myself beholden to the powers of others? – No
    Forced to “adapt or perish” to the new tech? – No. I own an on-the-side leather business and make holsters, belts, guitar straps, purses and other items. A craft as old as our ability to stand upright. I don’t need, nor use, super high tech robots to cut out a holster from a pattern. This means that it’s all technically “hand made” which commands a very high premium in this hi-tech world. Heh.
    Forced to conform to the system – No, not at all levels. The “system” tracks most of you reading this, but it is only through your own choices that most of this tracking is enabled. Throw away the iZombie and now they don’t know where you are. Get off social media, now they can’t monitor your ever post about farting in the bed. Use cash as much as possible and they have no idea what your purchasing habits are. You allow this tracking and control, they are simply taking advantage of it, nobody is “forcing” you to this, you choose it.
    Can’t gather your own food? Balderdash. And it’s not nearly as intricate as Roosh seems to think. You don’t need “legalities of owning a firearm” in most states (come to flyover country sometime Roosh, your perspective is skewed by constant Blue state living). You need a parcel of land, a privately acquired firearm (or bow if you want to go the full Injun route) and yes, of course, the license which is actually the only system/government interface you’ll encounter. The rest is up to you.
    Forced to participate in all levels of society – No (although some are admittedly unavoidable).
    The system, the whole thing, is a force in life to a degree, no question, but most of its “force” comes from our own choices and decisions, the things we do, say and act in every day life. There are truly inescapable things, such as (some) taxes, some laws (like those governing home ownership, you can’t get around that bullshit if you don’t want to live under a bridge, even an apartment has somebody else complying on your behalf and likely it’s in the rental agreement to constrain you as well), and it doesn’t matter how much of a hippy you are, you simply cannot run a red light without getting a ticket (if caught). While I’m not an ana-cap, they are right in their view that a lot of what we perceive as control is little more than the prisons we make in our own mind by assuming that the control is always in place. Fact is, it isn’t. You’d be amazed at how free you truly are in regards to some things, even “system” related things, once you come to the realization that they only have power over you because you’ve assigned a Night Watchman to your brain on their behalf.
    We are technological animals. It’s not only a matter of practicality, it simply cannot be helped. We are physically weak, we have no claws, our teeth suck and even if they didn’t we have weak jaws, we run slow (although, to our credit, we can distance run farther than any other animal), we have no real fur (excepting a few burly Italians I mean), we freeze in the cold and swelter in the heat to a higher degree than most other animals, we suck at swimming, and we cannot naturally fly. We are *literally* defenseless without utilizing our one superior trait, which is our mind. Our mind is what spurs us to create technology to make up for our weaknesses and surpass the animal kingdom in time. No fish can do what a nuclear sub can do, no bird can match an F-18 in speed or altitude or deadliness, no turtle can stand up to an M1 tank, no whale can out communicate-at-a-distance our vast satellite system.
    To give up technology is to give up life. We can say “we’ll just revert to the 1600’s level” but even then there were new things coming out all the time that dazzled and amazed. Hell, that was happening in the Dark Ages. There is no getting around it.
    So the solution is to adapt to the world ON YOUR TERMS, don’t be stuck in one place emotionally, stop giving them power over your mind that they are somehow “everywhere and in control” and get on with life.

    1. A point I was hoping you would make is this: who is to say what level of technology we revert to? Is medieval tech better than Napoleonic Era tech?
      Change is rarely an improvement; it is usually sacrificing one ill for another, and hoping the new ill is lesser than the old one.
      Ted points out problems with tech, but fails to understand this underlying concept: advancement is not a linear path upward, but a zig-zag of trade offs.

      1. Outstanding observation in your last paragraph.
        He, like most neo-Romantics, also seems to forget that the pre-tech world *sucked*, hard. People who think that life reverting back to the year 1450 would be “hard, but at least honest” forget that even a minor cut could land you in bed in a week and dead within 2 weeks from infection. They also, and I’m as sure of this as I am of the nose on my face, have no real concept of what real grueling, hard work is like when it is *daily*, when it *has* to be done just to get to the next day and when it *never* ends. You don’t get sick days, you don’t get to call in, and you don’t get vacation. If you think digging that ditch is hard work, wait until you have a fever and are puking and STILL have to dig it the next day. You never, ever get a break, because you always need to eat and keep things moving forward with the family or with yourself, or nature snuffs you out without mercy.

        1. One gains an appreciation for this when they’ve worked a physically demanding job for ten-twelve hours straight.
          It is a rewarding feeling to complete such a day. You know how tough you are.
          But the thought of doing this for the entirety of the foreseeable future is a truly grim and unmotivating feeling.

        2. Our burden is our great ability to delay gratification. Low IQ men, children and women don’t know it. But we are so greater at that, that as we can reject present satisfaction to get a more profitable one later, we can also balance if our currents options are after all truly worth in the hereafter.
          Women can’t do it, this is the main reason of women overcoming men in number in college. They live for the present and don’t care if the future is whatever worth or futile.
          Women with existential issues plainly do not exist, they can’t understand that a good which loses all its value is not a good to invest in.

        3. I used to work as a pedal bike courier in Central London.
          Fucking AWESOME but maybe the hardest most laborious job in existence other than maybe the Army which if on active duty might be – a bit – more dangerous.
          A meal, a bath and a spliff at the end of the day is another experience after a day like that.

        4. Great points. I always tell animal rights activists that no animals in nature die of old age. They all either die of disease, starvation or predation. Or maybe they get run over on the highway, but you get the point. As soon as an animal gets a little bit slow or injured, another animal takes them out. Without technology, this would happen to humans as well.

      2. From an old imaginary pamphlet in the 20’s…
        “In the wonderful world of tomorrow labour saving devices will make it easy for weak beta males with no drive or ambition to maintain a high standard of living and compete with men of morals, character and ethics! Mechanical devices will make formerly brutal physical tasks easy enough for a child or pregnant woman to perform. Everyone will be able to have a life of leisure and entertainment”

    2. “he also seems to confuse “force” with “desire”. I am not forced to get the latest technology,”
      Try not having a bank account or a card.
      The tech starts out as a choice, but because it makes life so much easier and industry grow, that tech becomes impossible to go without for the ‘new pace’ of trade/life.
      It’s why none of us can make any real money without putting it in a bank. Or it’s becoming increasingly hard to do so. Look at Copenhagen and it’s cashless trend. The West is being hijacked and they have no idea.
      Internet accessible mobile phones means you never escape work.
      The more money there is within a country, the less actual cash there will be.

      1. Try not having a bank account or a card.
        I have a debit card, which I use to withdraw cash and then make purchases. It’s a convenience that I don’t need, as I could easily go to the teller, so it’s not really required. We have exactly one credit card for electronic transactions that we zero out every month. Just a convenience, not a requirement for living.
        As to banks, yes, to an extent I agree. Even then though, I suspect that one can minimize his need of a bank. First, don’t get loans (neither a lender nor a borrower be, n’est-ce pas?). Second, conceivably you can store cash in a fireproof home safe and then with a minimal bank account you can stroll into “your bank” and make money orders to pay bills. Yeah, you’d have that C note in the bank, no question, in order to get your money orders for free, but otherwise you’re basically free of them. I don’t do this, but I could, easily.
        The tech starts out as a choice, but because it makes life so much easier and industry grow, that tech becomes impossible to go without for the ‘new pace’ of trade/life.
        Disagree. While of course I have tech (computer, heh) I don’t actually need *most* things to get by. Who the fuck *really* actually needs an iZombie, or hell, even a cell phone? Technically very, very few people, most people just mouth the lame excuse “in case of an emergency” and then buy the latest iPhone because they want it. I could care less if they have one, it’s not my place to make their choices, but I do know that nobody actually really “needs” one from an actual life-necessity standpoint.
        We (my wife and I) are going to buy a ranch in Wyoming once my kids are out of school and retire young. Most of the things that most people think that they “need” will not be accompanying us. While we do need a certain level of technology (light bulbs, central heating, guns, appliances, etc), it’s not nearly as dire as you’d think to not “have it all”. Life need not be this entire sense of pressure because you think you “need” everything “or else”. Screw “or else”.
        Yeah, I’m one of those throwbacks who reads paper books. YMMV I suppose.

        1. “First, don’t get loans (neither a debtor nor a borrower be, n’est-ce pas?).”
          A modern ‘secret’ is that credit/debt is the new cash. Scary I know. No money is made without being indebted to someone but thats what ‘they’ want. I personally have no debt, never have had any either, won’t be getting any.
          “Who the fuck *really* actually needs an iZombie, or hell, even a cell phone”
          I don’t think we are talking about small and personal tech like your examples which yeah nobody needs. Save the Internet Access computer/phone – I need it to get into my gym now and it’s ridiculous.
          I think we (rather the guy who made the manifesto who’s name I will not attempt) are talking bigger tech like cars, ships, computer systems, all the tech that industries are built on – imagine attempting war without radio’s for example. Before you know it a luxury item becomes something you can’t live without or life is difficult absent of at least. The internet is now many people’s go to for many services and education.
          The smarter and more useful the tech, the more it becomes a fundamental part of a society.
          “We (my wife and I) are going to buy a ranch in Wyoming once my kids are out of school and retire young. Most of the things that most people think that they “need” will not be accompanying us.”
          It’s a great idea and one that appeals more to me the older I get and the more Christian I become.
          But the time will come when the state will have ‘concern’ about that way of living – something to do with maximising green spaces or some shit like that probably.
          Of course humans can always survive in a more ‘regressed’ state but the elites have been developing their plan for control for a long time with no indications at this stage that they will fail to form a one world government dependent on technology.
          “Yeah, I’m one of those throwbacks who reads paper books.”
          Wow you are old.

        2. Also, you as many red piller’s, will be the exception.
          Our society would grind to a halt if some pretty overlooked tech started failing then who knows what.

        3. Read the essay again. Especially the segment about cars and city planning. The crux of his essay is that people lose freedom from technology and he’s right. Nobody has been able to fault him on this point convincingly.

        4. I will argue that we do not LOSE our freedom.
          We TRADE it.
          We trade it for something we want MORE than the freedom we are “losing”.
          This language of LOSS and TYRANNY and MANIPULATION and DECEIT we use to describe the Free Marketplace of Living is possibly THE greatest deception of the 20th/21st Centuries. Greater than the deception of the FeMatrix.
          By the rules of this language, we imagine that we can always possess ALL OF OUR CHOICES ALL OF THE TIME.
          But then, Evil Society comes along and some how FORCES us to make a choice BETWEEN this or that and thereby ROBS US of the OTHER THINGS we didn’t choose. We delusionally think we could have, should have, must have been able to have ALL OUR OPTIONS. To have our cake but eat it, too. Some how, we believe, Society forced us to give up our freedom to HAVE IT ALL.
          While it may be true that the man who would TRADE his freedom for security deserves neither, it is nevertheless a FREE trade. He could not have BOTH.

        5. The coming “cashless” society may be the one thing to through a hitch in your giddy up. Once this comes to pass, and it will with enough advancement, you’ll have to find people willing to barter or trade in silver to avoid the necessary tech associated with it.
          I agree that at the moment though debit and credit cards aren’t a necessity. Just incredibly damned convenient.
          By the way, the Ozarks in southern MO and northern AR are beautiful and not quite as cold as WY. Plus, land is cheap. Of course, Wyoming land is probably cheap as well.

        6. People lose freedom from technology because those in government exploit the fear of the new. The government exploits the control freak busy-bodies in the society to gain new powers. The automobile itself didn’t give government more power, the people running government exploited it to their own ends. There shouldn’t be drivers licenses, there weren’t for horse drawn vehicles. But government exploited fear. That’s what it does, exploits fear and other emotions.
          Driving before government taking full control:

        7. “Who the fuck *really* actually needs an iZombie, or hell, even a cell phone? Technically very, very few people, ”
          You’re just plain wrong here, ghost. Try getting some type of job that pays more than 10 bucks an hour and telling your potential employer that you can’t be reached because you choose not to own a cell phone. That’s an inconvenience they don’t need. Why would any potential employer deal with that when they can just give the job to the next izombie addicted cunt and/or faggot?
          Or let’s say you’re in your 20’s, or hell even 30’s…and you try to hit the dating scene without the “tech” you think isn’t a “Must” in todays society. The sad fact is if you bust out a flip phone, or god forbid not have the latest iPhag these bitches won’t condescend to even be in your presence.
          So yes, its not ABSOLUTELY necessary, if you want to be an unemployed, sexless, socially retarded aspie.
          For the record i am *not* saying tech is inherently good, or that we should all be on the grid or yolked to the electronic leash that is the smart phone, just pointing out that you’re incorrect in saying it’s not a NECESSARY part of life if you want to be any kind of a real participant in it.

        8. “We (my wife and I) are going to buy a ranch in Wyoming once my kids are out of school and retire young”
          It’s none of my busines but will you pay in one dum for ghe ranch outright? Or take a bank loan? Are you against the idea of mortgages that are reasonable?

        9. But we trade it as our arms are twisted to do so in many cases. I can’t drive a car w/o a license, can’t open a bank account w/o a DL, and can’t get the DL w/o an SSN, so I’ve been compelled to make many concessions regarding my privacy to participate in society at a basic level. My only choice would be to live at the hunter-gather level if I wished true privacy and there is no choice about participating in society at a level you choose, as it is effectively chosen for you if you choose to participate at all.

        10. “Neither a borrower nor a lender be
          For loan oft loses both itself and friend
          And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.”
          Reread the entire monologue by Polonius. Its everything that an ideal man should be.
          Cell phones can really come in handy. If you have to be out and about for your work then they are a necessity. You may not need the most expensive one, but smartphones have a lot of features which many people do need to conduct their lives in the way they see fit.

        11. I don’t disagree with a thing you say. I simply reject the learned helplessness it implies and the disingenuous whine that we are FORCED to make these choices.
          Sometimes we just hate the choices available. But choices they are.
          And where did we get the idea that only pleasant choices were real choices? Some choices are terrible. Some choices are evil, but there is usually a lesser of the two and that’s the best we have when making such choices. But choices they are and they must be made.

        12. I haven’t had a problem with my prepaid flip-phone. I actually use it as a conversation piece to tease girls about their e-addictions. I go camping often and have lost expensive phones. Saying this is not only true but helps build interest in women used to men who can’t even pitch the tent in their pants.

        13. Try to live life WITHOUT MONEY, or what most people consider to be money, and you’ll find the path to freedom.

        14. Do you really think that a man can not have freedom and security?
          You do not understand, freedom and security have been the norm for a very long time for much of the world.
          The whole mentality of trading freedom for security is a recent thing and is not real security.
          Just look at the security provided by the all powerful ever trustworthy US government on the 11th of September 2001.
          What happened there?
          The US and Western world by and large are walking blindly into less freedom less security.
          Thats the reality.

        15. It’s not really a choice if 90% of the choices you might make are illegitimate and officially denied behaviours.
          We let people vote but when we did they voted for the wrong guy.

        16. At any moment large groups of people could just decide to value something other than the established currency – from bit coins to salt. All that matters is that enough others who’s trade you value, value the same thing just as much. we have been running off of a totally valueless not worth the paper it’s printed on fiat currency for a while and this proves it.
          The dynamics would totally change just like that.
          Wont happen because it’s not realistic. But theoretically is that simple.

        17. OK. If you’re not going to read for comprehension, don’t bother replying to any more of my comments. They are written at a college level and require a basic understanding of both dialectic reasoning and logic to grasp.
          I never said you couldn’t have both. Nor did the Founding Father I was QUOTING.I said “…trade freeom FOR security…” I never even implied you couldn’t have both. Ideally, you would want them both.

        18. “They are written at a college level”
          Yes that makes sense.
          “OK. If you’re not going to read for comprehension, don’t bother replying to any more of my comments.”
          If you don’t like people replying to your posts stop posting them on public comment boards.
          ‘Read for comprehension’…
          …What else might one read for in your opinion…?

        19. “…illegitimate and officially denied behaviors.” Please describe what those are.
          You STILL have a choice. Leave. Expatriate. Revolt. You are always in control of YOU.
          “GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH ”
          Choices. Fearful choices.

        20. When I worked at Sears, they switched to a debit card for pay (transactions cost money). No choice. Now try collecting the “cash” you spoke of.
          Yes, you can hit an ATM, but you have to use the tech that Sears told us to, in order to get the cash.
          n order for your claim to be true, you’d have to be getting paid in cash. Or at least a check you can cash. But then, some banks won’t even cash their own checks anymore and tell you to deposit it at your own bank.
          You could use a check cashing place, but then you lose 4% of your money and you’re paying for them to use their tech on your check.
          I.e., Give it up, dude! You lost! 🙂

        21. Keeping us all balled up in urban areas, unarmed, dependent on govt. and mass transportation, hoping the food supply chain doesn’t collapse?

        22. Ha you sound like a real gimp.
          Obama and Hillary Clinton love people like you – you make the US ‘great’.
          “You STILL have a choice. Leave.”
          Pussy alert…

        23. I ask you a sincere question and you can’t even recognize it nor answer it. What a waste of electrons you are.
          You bring up Hilary and Obama? WTF? Keep to the fucking subject, you asp!
          You’re like a boy jeking off to a picture of a naked woman staring into the camera. It doesn’t matter what the article says turns her on and off, what she studied in college, or what her hobbies are, YOU imagine she’s thinking of you, interested in you. Wants to listen and pay attention to you!
          So you go ahead and keep jerking off to my giant brain ideas. Be sure and save these comments so you can relive over and over again every clever thing I inspired you to say!
          Just don’t get your jism on the keyboard.

        24. “What a waste of electrons you are.”
          I’ve been called worse so I’ll take it.
          “Keep to the fucking subject, you asp!”
          Too far Kay. Too far. you’re gonna regret calling me an asp.
          “You’re like a boy jerking off”
          Repent for your sinful thoughts.
          “So you go ahead and keep jerking off to my giant brain ideas.
          Thanks if you don’t mind I’ll be getting back to that.
          “Be sure and save these comments so you can relive over and over again every clever thing I inspired you to say!”
          Your so cute when your angry.
          “Just don’t get your jism on the keyboard.”
          Too late.

        25. “Too late.”
          I suspected. Omegas have problems long before they manifest on the internet. Elliot Rogers was damaged long before he began trolling the PUA sites.
          Just don’t take anyone with you when you go.

        26. “I suspected.”
          You were enjoying perverse and sinful thoughts about me?
          Revenge of the Cut ‘N’ Paste Troll.

        27. My cleverness and wit has been objectively demonstrated and proven on several occasions.
          Jesus is Lord – not Paul or Peter.

        28. Give me something better to work with…
          Go back to the sexual obscenities and blasphemous homosexual thoughts pertaining to me that you’ve been experiencing in the evenings…

        29. Sorry, your best is all you’ve got to work with and we both know that’s not enough. Otherwise you have risen to the challenge and posted something worth reading here.

        30. OK the Celts are formerly Hebrews and pretty much all white people are the ‘lost tribes’ of Israel. Some black peoples too but not all I don’t think.
          The ancient Hebrew’s made it to the America’s as evidenced by artefacts found that were inscribed with PALEO Hebrew.
          What you saying?

        31. How can this not be a fascinating topic for a Christian?
          “Thanks for so openly demonstrg your viciousness.”
          You forget that whosoever should come to Jesus will have eternal life with Him. You perceive a racial agenda where there is none.
          SJW fail.
          And the tables are turned…

        32. Do you even know who you’re talking to anymore?
          You’ve gotten stuck on stupid.
          Smack yourself in the head with a hammer. Cognituve Recalibration is the proper treatment.
          Good luck.

        33. Thanks for the feedback, you hypocritical Troll. I’ll take it under advisement.
          “Who are you to judge another man’s servant? It is by his own master that he stands or fslls.”
          In the meantime, why don’t you just keep pointing and shrieking. Eventually someone will give you the attention you crave.

        34. Egads! To not have the latest iPhone, you must be a plebian! Actually that is a good idea. What better way to get an insight into a woman’s nature than by how she will react to the sight of something she disapproves of. Good point sir!

      2. And some places now are electronic payment *only* (ok I can only think of airplane cabins, but this will only become more commonplace). Concert tickets perhaps?
        Or try not getting a smart phone. The last phone I bought I had to go online and order an EU / Asian Nokia export. The only phones available locally are smartphones (with their accompanying $85+ data plans).

        1. Or try not getting a smart phone.
          It’s very easy. The local AT&T store has a wall full of them, last I was there (about 8 months ago). They are not the prime draw, but they are not hard to get. Might be a regional market thing though.

        2. I used to have T-Mobile, and they didn’t carry anything but smartphones. I was shocked when I went to the store and found out they could only sell me pocket sized computers.
          http://www.eyeonmobility.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/general_smartphone_storedisplay.jpg
          I now use a MVNO third party carrier that is cheaper, has no credit check, doesn’t know what kind of phone I’m using or even my name or address, just bills me for cheap reliable service on towers owned by ATT/T-Mobile at about half the cost with no overages. When you call for customer support the “security check” is telling them what rate plan you are on 🙂 I think Wal Mart sells dumb phones for some of these services in their stores.

        3. And the crazy thing is that we just embrace it with open arms as it makes the previously impossible possible or it makes our lives so easy we can’t let go. Gets cheaper and more accessible with time.
          A cashless society is much more fucked up than the average person realises.

        4. “They are not the prime draw, but they are not hard to get”
          The old fashioned cell phones WILL indeed be phased out, make no mistake about it. And even basic pay-as-you-go plan service plans will be done away with.
          And as the number of people who live off the grid increases, eventually the elite will stop this, and if course will falsley acuse these people of being ‘terrorists’ and be sent off to FEMA.

        5. And when things do go cashless, all the idiots of the world will talk about how “it’s about time” and “cash was so inconvenient to carry around”. Meanwhile I’ll have to buy extra food, beer and gas to trade the dealer for that bag of weed I can’t buy.

        6. I have a ‘limited’ smartphone, so to say. No data, no apps. Only used for convenience.
          Not going to lie, we still have a lovely rotary dial up at the family cottage.

        7. “”it’s about time” and “cash was so inconvenient to carry around”.”
          Yep – already happening with a lot of public transport with this very justification.

        8. You may still be able to find them, but the move is to use them to perform basic tasks, including electronic payments, which will soon be mandatory as we go cashless. You can still find a pay phone every once in a while too, but both are on the way out.

        9. I’m not sure where you’re buying your weed, but our street dealers have been accepting credit/debit transactions for years. Cell phones and Square.

        10. Just be aware that if your phone has satnav, or google maps, your every move IS trackable.
          I’ve actually seen bank robbers get given the maximum sentence based purely off of the phone tracking giving the impression of professionalism and experienced bank robbing.
          Without this, these guy’s would have been given half the time as they could make out it was their first attempt.
          Society will say ‘good shame on criminals’ but the precedent has been set to use these methods to build and strengthen cases against people in order to hold more power over them.

        11. Don’t have Google Maps, and I’ve disabled all tracking features on my phone.
          Whether or not it works, I don’t know.

      3. You are whining because you can’t have what you want without behaving in the way the system REQUIRES us all to behave in order for it to work.
        Try driving on the freeway with everyone exercising their “freedom” to drive south in the northbound lane. We are always TRADING our freedom for something we want MORE than our freedom. I want to be able to buy things without the risk of carrying cash. I must give up the freedom of anonymity. I TRADE one for the other.
        And it is trade that is the quintessential human activity. You can’t get more “real”, more “human” than economics.
        Homo Economicus.

        1. How about this. Carry cash now and you get the best of both worlds. Most criminals will assume you don’t have cash, thus society has reduced this risk for you because most people don’t carry much of it anymore, and you still get the anonymity.

        2. We could have what we want without giving in to the system if the vast majority of people didn’t fall for the system’s manipulations of their emotions. The losses were built upon people being conditioned from the time they were children to have the system keep them safe. They go begging the system to regulate to control. Get the schools away from government and things would get better in a generation.
          Driving on the right side of the road is simply a convention that allows roads to function well. It actually came about as any social convention would. There is no freedom lost by following such a convention. We follow a convention of using the english language, did I give up my freedom to use Swedish? No. I follow a convention to be understood. I would drive on the right side of the road to get where I am going in a timely fashion without crashing.

        3. Interesting. Everything you have said confirms what I said with the exception of your blaming a nameless, faceless, unconscious “system” for people’s default preference for what works for them in the present because it worked for their parents in the past. And every new behavior introduced into a society is automatically vetted to ensure it achieves its purpose(s).
          There is no “system” in the sense you are using the term. There are groups and alliances and ideologies and interests, all working to achieve their various, sundry and conflicting goals.
          But there is no Master Overmind determining how society will achieve which goals and how.

        4. There is no Overmind, but there is a feedback loop of an elite, usually technologists and entrepreneurs, who sell their ideas to politicians and business, which then cascades, as the masses start to adopt what is put before them, which gets more business and political leaders on board, which then makes more of the masses want what is being offered until the marketplace is dominated. Even the inventors and early evangelists can seldom predict where their ideas end up, which speaks to a blindness to the potential harms.

        5. All you say contains grains of truth. I object to the idea that anyone involved has a Master Plan guaranteed to be implemented. If a butterfly flapping its wings in China has repercussions in Chile, then what can we predict about the actions of hundreds of thousands making small and large choices?
          Life follows chaos theory, not conspiracy theory. Yes, they act to achieve their goals. But so do we. And thousands of others. The law if unintended consequences will f**k everyone in the end.

        6. You say there is no system (the term you initially used) but then you go on to partially describe it. The system partially consists of various institutions that are working towards their visions of utopia. There is some minor disagreement, sure, but the basic model is the same. This was started over a century ago and is available for anyone to learn about if they wish.
          But the system also consists of ordinary people who through the schools and media work on their own to bring about what is envisioned. It is through the schools and media that the masses are told what and how to think.They then work on their own to manifest it.
          A trade off… People didn’t want to educate their own kids or pay for it fully themselves. So what happened? The government does it. How does the government do it? In the Prussian model. What’s the Prussian model? To create fungible human resources for the government, military, and corporations.
          The trade offs are simply not required in a free market system. If people weren’t conditioned into a certain way of thinking then there would be more choices. Want to not carry cash and not be tracked? If we had a free market system someone would develop such a thing. However we don’t so such thing is illegal (the end run of not-really anonymous bit coin shows how the powers that be react). Lately the intellectual class has floated the idea of getting rid of cash. You won’t have that choice once enough children are educated with the idea that cash is what criminals use.
          When there’s a critical mass, say goodbye to cash. You won’t have the choice any longer. The tradeoff, like many we have now, will be forced upon you because that’s the way those with power want it.

        7. Thank you for such a concise and well-laid out description of the “system”. We know it colloquially as ” Society.” Not saying that to be snarky at all, bur to clarify just what it is we are talking about.
          People who write about “the system” do so in a way that implies (or else they say it outright) that it is a giant, malignant, self-conscious entity with nearly unstoppable goals and foolproof plans to achieve them.
          These same people never talk about what else coukd exist if this “system” were not already in place, nor do they speak in anything other than utopian libertarian banalities about what could, should, but CAN’T replace it because what is is omnipotent and will crush anyone who tries.
          So why are you all still moving your lips?
          The fact of the matter, and my entire point, is that this bogeyman you talk about arose as a natural and unstoppable outgrowth of human beings interacting with one another to achieve their millions of individual wants, needs, and desires and until the invention of the internet influencing its development was extremely difficult and required untold influencers, catalysts, thinkers and doers.
          But today and into the future, thanks to the internet, smaller and smaller groups of people can both speak out to the larger “system” and have a possible impact never possible before. OR gather to themselves small and large cadres of fellow-travelers with whom they can experiment with new social structures, technologies, and belief systems.
          America did this in the 19th century. Name a major city founded in that era and chances are it was built by a dedicated group of pioneers eager to create heaven on earth. And I say that with respect to them all and no mockery. They were trying to do what modern day deriders of the “system” say no one will ever be allowed to do. I say no one cares enoigh to stop you if you do try but your chance of success is slight.

        8. “You are whining because you can’t have what you want without behaving in the way the system REQUIRES us all to behave in order for it to work.”
          I bet you say that to Saudi Arabian’s with the same stupid tone.
          +THE SYSTEM REQUIRES THAT YOU WORK IN ORDER FOR THE SYSTEM TO WORK+
          You been starchin dem pant’s real good n stiff boy?
          “Try driving on the freeway with everyone exercising their “freedom” to drive south in the northbound lane.”
          You imagine that people are wild animals with no common sense, decency or self preservation.
          “We are always TRADING our freedom for something we want MORE than our freedom.”
          You speak as though freedom and security are mutually exclusive which is just not the case.
          “I want to be able to buy things without the risk of carrying cash.”
          You feel more secure when your money is in your hand or is just numbers on a screen in a bank vault you’ll never get anywhere near?
          “I must give up the freedom of anonymity. I TRADE one for the other.”
          But must we all because you’re stupid and cowardly enough to look to someone else you don’t know to provide security for you and your family and it’s wealth?
          How about holding on to our guns in order to protect our cash – rather than handing over our gun’s, handing over our cash, and just let the directors of 9/11 print money, arm themselves and tell us how best to live our ives for the greater good of society?
          You need Jesus Christ.
          More than the average fuck up.
          Just don’t ever take the mark in your right hand or your forehead.
          You will need it in order to buy and/or sell.
          But don’t take it, it’s not going to be as fun as you think it will be.

        9. LOL!! The assumptions you make! The lunatic ideas you impute to me from a simple sentence or two! Amazing!
          And you still managed to miss my point! Hilarious!
          False Equivalency: American society = Saudi society.
          False Equivalency: Obeying the law = slavery.
          Straw Man Fallacy: Claiming I said people are wild animals.
          Straw Man Fallacy: I never mentioned security so how could I be saying they are mutually exclusive.
          False Dilemma: Either have cash or have debit.
          Solipsistic Fallacy: I must see things your way. Only your experience is true.
          Ad Hominem: I am a coward because you are talking about security, which I never mentioned.
          The Evil Cabal Fallacy: Some omnipotent, malevolent cabal is going to come get us all because I made an argument that we all make FREE CHOICES every day of our lives about how we will live our lives.
          Ad Hominem: I don’t know Jesus because I don’t agree with you, therefore I am fucked up!
          FALSE! I have served the Lord for the past 40 years. I am willing to bet I know his Word, the history of His Church, and its philosophical and theological developments throughout history many times better than you.
          You need to re-read what I actually said and not what you THINK I said. I didn’t say ANY of the things you accused me of saying, nor do I believe any of the things you accused me of believing.
          My point was simple. WE CHOOSE. No one MAKES US choose. The martyrs were given a CHOICE: Sacrifice to Caesar or DIE. They CHOSE death.
          THAT was my only point in that post, as I recall. Stop whining because you don’t like the choices you are making. If you don’t like the choices you have, make a different choice. Own your choices.
          “His journey to Perelandra was not a moral exercise, nor a sham fight. If the issue lay in [God’s] hands, Ransom and the Lady were those hands. The fate of a world really depended on how they behaved in the next few hours. …
          The voluble self protested, wildly, swiftly, like the propeller of a ship racing when it is out of the water. The imprudence, the unfairness, the absurdity of it! Did [God] want to lose worlds? What was the sense of so arranging things that anything really important should finally and absolutely depend on such a man of straw as himself? And at that moment, far away on Earth, as he now could not help remembering, men were at war [WW2], and white-faced subalterns and freckled corporals who had but lately begun to shave, stood in horrible gaps or crawled forward in deadly darkness, awaking, like him, to the preposterous truth that all really depended on their actions; and far away in time, Horatious stood on the bridge, and Constantine settled in his mind whether he would or would not embrace the new religion, and Eve herself stood looking upon the forbidden fruit and the Heaven of Heavens waited for her decision. He writhed and ground his teeth, but could not help seeing. Thus and not otherwise, the world was made. Either something or nothing must depend on individual choices. And if something, who could set bounds to it? A stone may determine the course of a river. He was that stone at this horrible moment which had become the centre of the whole universe. The [angels] of all worlds, the sinless organisms of everlasting light, were silent in Deep Heaven to see what Elwin Ransom of Cambridge would do.”
          — Perelandra, by C.S. Lewis
          Don’t you just love the internet?

        10. Just be sure to obey all the rules and stay on the right side of your elected government.
          Don’t be like these hippies who want to do their own thing – you gotta tune out, plug in and give it all up citizen.
          Listen to your betters.

        11. I’m interested in the fact you have stated that you follow Christ and have done for 40 years.
          This is wonderful news.
          But are you going to go with society/government/the rules when you are required to take a mark in your right hand or your forehead?
          Think about that when your following Paul rather than Christ – who has already demonstrated and commanded that Governments not always be followed – ESPECIALLY when they are not themselves following God and are acting in rebellion against God’s Will.

        12. Good grief! What a Troll! You not only don’t respond to anything I said, you revert to some automated tripe about Paul vs. Christ! As if the two are rivals!
          Worrhless, worthless, worthless.

        13. “you revert to some automated tripe about Paul vs. Christ! As if the two are rivals!”
          No, one is God the other is no different from any Born Again Child of God.
          You keep referring to the Paul/Peter bits that contradict the Jesus bits – like many ‘works based’ Christians.
          Jesus never said obey your governments.
          Jesus said this,
          “‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you.”
          It was Paul and other Born Again believers, who said obey your governments. With the Disciples, Jesus was constantly rebuking and correcting them – this continued after Jesus resurrection in case you think the disciples suddenly had it all figured out then and would no longer be corrected by God.
          It was God who said do not take the Mark in your hand or forehead that your government’s will expect you to.
          And Jesus actually demonstrated rebellion against the established powers that be, when they are not in the will of God.
          So your 40 years of following Christ you haven’t noticed that Paul and Peter were not God, when they spoke in contradiction to God or in the place of God they were to be ignored – as you would any other believer who contradicts God. Paul and Peter were just like you and I. Not always right and learning from God.
          “Good grief! What a Troll! You not only don’t respond to anything I said,”
          Anything you have said that warrant’s response, I have responded to.
          Your misinterpretation of God’s Will for His children and the governments they live under means not much I say will be understood.
          Stop listening to Paul and Peter over Jesus.

      4. >> Try not having a bank account or a card
        Ted tried it. And did it. So it can be done. Actually, any number of people did it and are doing it.
        Now, let’s not ignore that he leached money off of his brother’s rat-race salary. And didn’t any cognitive dissonance about it. Kinda like any girl.
        Ted’s worship of non-technology is cool – if you’re cool with getting knocked up at age 12, and dying of a simple infection at age 22.
        Because that’s what the paleo looked like.
        By the way, if you think that hunt/gather survival is low-skill….. ok – YOU try it. Maybe you will write your manifesto without sponging off somebody in upstate New York.
        Ted didn’t – cause he couldn’t.

        1. “Because that’s what the paleo looked like.”
          I’d be careful claiming any understanding of what the so called Paleolithic era looked like.
          Most are foolish enough to believe that researchers can tell us what was happening on our planet billion’s of years ago. This is funny enough.
          That foolishness is extended to accepting that some researchers know what life was like in the Paleolithic era.
          None of us actually know this and don’t be fooled into thinking someone can tell you about this. It’s all guess work. Not even sure that Dinosaurs and humans didn’t co-exist anymore and there’s solid evidence for this.
          “Now, let’s not ignore that he leached money off of his brother’s rat-race salary. And didn’t any cognitive dissonance about it. Kinda like any girl.”
          I see this as more of a childish thing rathe than a girl thing.
          “Ted’s worship of non-technology is cool – if you’re cool with getting knocked up at age 12, and dying of a simple infection at age 22.”
          Records of Ancient Ethiopians who lived average 120 years old. Diet was red meat, raw dairy and animal blood.
          “By the way, if you think that hunt/gather survival is low-skill….. ok – YOU try it.”
          The difference is those skills are developed naturally from young, come naturally to any half healthy male, and have been honed over (allegedly) millions of years of evolution of our sharp animal instincts. IF you believe in that whole theory anyway.
          Very different from skills that slowly erode and decay our bodies, make us hate and distrust ourselves and other people, are developed to make someone else lot’s of the profit’s and that break down the wonderful differences between men and women.
          I think surviving rough BUT WITH DIGNITY and freewill, is infinitely preferable than the half life of servitude, dream chasing, and self destruction many live today….
          Who’s Ted?

    3. Furthermore I see other patent contradiction in all that. Kaczynski lived succesfully away from technology and nobody hindered him it(except for the fact he was bombing people).
      And what he is actually claming is the freedom of live in a free tech society while preaching individualism. To live in that society you need to create your own society with the few others masochistic or restrict the individual freedom to get tech in the current society, and the latest I can assert you that was what he identified with “Revolution”
      However I have enjoyed reding this article, and some parts are worth to read.

    4. A most excellent comment. Too much truth for some to handle as evidenced by some of the replies here.
      Most people cannot handle the truth of just how much of the human world is “manufactured.” Which to them means, “artificial” and “inauthentic.” Its almost a rite of passage for a youngster to begin railing against the “system” before he turns 21.
      The fact is, mankind CREATES. That automatically means “artificial”. Even your leatherwork is “manufactured”. It doesn’t exist in nature except on an animal as skin. The cry for the “authentic” is the cry of the manchild terrified of his own weaknesses and afraid of his primary tool of survival, as you correctly pointed out – his mind. It is the plea of the coward to return to the womb when nothing was demanded or expected of him.
      Yes, technology “traps” us – by giving us more choices than any generation has ever has before. Which is the very DEFINITION of freedom. How much freedom does a bushman have? A tribesman in the Amazon? One. Survive or don’t survive. That’s it.
      It’s so funny to see all these anti-technology luddites use computers and then internet to whine about how imprisoned they are by “The Syystem”! Even the survivalists living off the grid manage to access their blogs on a regular basis!
      Ayn Rand is more relevant every day! I just wish they’d made a better movie of Atlas Shrugged. Actually, it should have been a one season television series. Like the book, Battlefield Earth.” A fantastic story butchered by its lovers.

      1. I’m with you on this but it doesn’t mean that all technology is good for us.
        We fuck up sometimes… A rat will take cocaine over food if given the choice… Until it dies. You can say it traded the food for the cocaine and assume it was the right trade, or not.

        1. Absolutely! Man is not only a rational animal, he is an animal that rationalizes.
          Christianity has always recognized the dual nature of man. Part anjmal, part divine. All instruction is intended to teach us to let the divine rule the animal passions.

      2. yeah those movies suck, well, the first one was alright. Ayn Rand was definitely anti-collectivism yet pro-tech.

    5. The system has been closing down the range further and further as time progresses. It uses the state monopoly on legal violence, force to accomplish making the range smaller and smaller for independent minded people. More laws, more regulations, more tracking, more licenses. Even monetary policy is a weapon against the individual.
      The system is working on how to get rid of cash right now. How small will the range be when it succeeds? It’s already made cash very painful to hold by bringing interest rates to zero. It also pushes borrowing which in turn causes things like homes, land, etc to be bid up ever higher by the masses who only care about the monthly nut. It couldn’t do these things without force. Without legal tender laws and the force behind him.
      Force is absolutely the correct word to use. Sure, some can still find freedom in what of the limited range is left. You did, until fed gov comes down on you about the sourcing of your leather or invokes some other obscure law to force you on to the reservation.
      Nobody is to be left alone by the collectivist busy-bodies. They’ll come knocking sooner or later for everyone.
      It even comes knocking for the people who moved out to the desert to get away from it:

    6. You are confused ,his manifesto is clear about how we are forced or actively coerced into buying into the system. The fact you are on the net has a list of consequences. It’s as simple as being in a car and not on a horse. Meaning that business can place greater commuting pressure on people is one of many examples. Man is not made for the modern world but not is he made for eating pine needles in the woods in solitude. Ted was on point but really had no substitute model other than the system needs to collapse.

    7. Try “compelled” instead, since it implies pressure, but not an absolute obligation. We ARE compelled to do most of these things and have to fight the flow to be free of them.
      I find that many places expect you to have a smartphone and send them a picture of an item to them now, in real time. There can be only so many holstermakers and leatherworkers in society and there’s competition from machines and China to worry about, such that the masses probably will buy some Kydex piece stamped out overseas instead or a leather belt made in Outer Mongolia instead. Same goes for other kinds of handiwork, which are now premium, non-essential products for most.

    8. You’re really short sighted on this subject, try to survive out in the wild without any modern industrial goods, such as clothes for instance, let this be said loud and clear, you depend on the modern industrial society for a full 100%
      Nature would shred you if you were placed back at square one in an instant.

      1. Hey, doorknob, I’m advocating that Technology isn’t the end all be all evil that Ted thinks it is. He ascribes some mystical “Force” and “compulsion” to technology and absolves people of their own free will in dealing with technology. I’m actually pro-technology because I believe in free will and the ability to choose to use or not use technology at one’s own discretion.

        1. You never chose to make use of any of the modern goods you make use of, you grew up with those, if you were born 200 years in the future (assuming society wouldn’t crash before that and tech keeps advancing) you would be listing a whole list of goods of that time, because you were born into that, … you never “chose” them. Like i said before, you’d be hopeless without any technology, you couldn’t “choose” to live entirely without them and be fine…. are you willing to go back to hunter-gatherer life at the drop of a hat ? I doubt you could bring yourself to settle for that since you’re too dependent on your stove and kitchen and house and central heating.

    9. Right… but wrong.
      He’s generalizing these ideas to general population. You and many here on RoK are exceptional and not dependent on technologies, but use them for the purposes of freeing ourselves from the system, the Matrix if you will, as Neo used the technology to jack in and hack the system.
      We are already part of the solution adapting the world, ON OUR TERMS, without bombs and blood I might ad. But with a fair amount of backlash and vitriol against our ideas based in the realities of human nature and behavior above the idealistic constructs forced upon us by the system.
      This is why, despite my many accomplishments in my life — many of them in technology — my future ambitions are to build a REAL LIFE for myself and my family where survival, self-sufficiency are complete freedom from the system are the core of my goals. I’d rather build a self sufficient island that produces everything I need to survive and thrive more than wanting to build the next billion dollar tech IPO.
      I also am not dependent on the technology, and actually seek to distance myself from it more and more as every day passes, replacing it with tools that produce things I need and want. And those things are becoming fewer and fewer with each passing year. I can now live fairly comfortable with less than a 100 possessions, one of which is still a smartphone. But at some point, that will go too, perhaps to be replaced by a HAM radio.
      But in reading excerpts of the manifesto, I immediately recalled the Amish lifestyle and how they’ve carefully restricted the use of technology so as not to displace the importance each individuals contribution to the community. By modern expectations, the Amish way of life should have been crushed by all the technological advances in the last 100 years. Yet they still thrive in significant numbers and arguably have healthier, happier lives than most modern westerners.
      A time is coming when those with power will fight the last battles over things that are not real, and not important, but seem to be in their minds. The last great world war will be fought over surrogate power and possessions. I hope by that time I and others like me are firmly established in our new societies that embrace producing real value over surrogate value.

    10. Maybe he wasn’t a bomber?
      Conspiratorial? Read this:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski
      “He also participated in a personality assessment study conducted by Henry Murray, an expert on stress interviews.[16] These experiments may have been part of the controversial, top-secret CIA program that was later revealed as Project MKUltra.[citation needed] Students in Murray’s study were told they would be debating personal philosophy with a fellow student.[17] Instead, they were subjected to a “purposely brutalizing psychological experiment”.[17] During the test, students were taken into a room and connected to electrodes that monitored their physiological reactions, while facing bright lights and a one-way mirror. Each student had previously written an essay detailing their personal beliefs and aspirations: the essays were turned over to an anonymous attorney, who would enter the room and individually belittle each student based in part on the disclosures they had made. This was filmed, and students’ expressions of impotent rage were played back to them several times later in the study. According to author Alston Chase, Kaczynski’s records from that period suggest he was emotionally stable when the study began. Kaczynski’s lawyers attributed some of his emotional instability and dislike of mind controltechniques to his participation in this study.[17] Indeed, some have suggested that this experience may have been instrumental in Kaczynski’s future actions.”
      He was no idiot, but a brilliant Mathmetician. Brilliant people can make dangerous points that challenge authority. I have no professional credentials to back me up, he was a child prodigy and accepted at Harvard at 16. Before the bombings who you have believe anything I say over him? I doubt it. He had at least some clout intellectually and academically.

    11. Right on spot. Technology attracts and traps us. But when you take a stand for your independence from the herd, such as taking the red pill, you realize that you don’t have to buy into the whole mess that’s making Joe Q. Public into zombies.
      When you sift through Nietzche and read Heidegger, they warned us about the industrial revolution and people becoming “mass.” Only by standing up and making the decision to be a genuine human being can we open the doors of the cage that society puts us in.

    12. Yours is a nice analysis of Kaczynski’s manifesto and his assertion that Leftists can be gotten rid of by eliminating technology. I agree wholeheartedly.
      The unanswered question, however, remains. What do we do about these damned Leftist and their intrusion into our private and public lives, their diminution of our Constitutionally-protected rights, and their perversion of all our time-tested institutions?

  12. “The media has done a good of painting Kaczynski as a deranged madman, but I found his writing to be clear and perceptive.”
    When the writings of a serial killer sound clear and perceptive to you, it suggests your thinking is a bit flawed.
    I’m surprised at you Roosh. The personal character, life journey and competence of the “political philosopher” are relevant to any analysis of their “philosophy.” I would think you’d agree.
    Kaczynski fails in any assessment of his character. He was a sexually-frustrated, socially-retarded “peak too-sooner” who constructed a juvenile manifesto to justify his expressions of rage toward innocent people and cover over his own professional failures.
    At no point did his actions reflect any real “terrorism,” as the people he murdered were academics, small business types and lobbyists. The people he attempted to murder all were a real mixed bag, but only that United Airlines executive made any sense in the context of his “philosophy” (the computer store owner must have been something personal.) In fact, he was such an incompetent terrorist that it actually took him something like 7 years before one of his bombs actually killed someone.
    There are plenty of anti-technology, anti-modern, Luddite writers out there. If you’re going to advocate examining this theme, then I’d recommend that you pick someone who actually did something significant (even if it was a terrorist act) and who won’t die a virgin in prison.

    1. You’re talking about the man, not the argument he presented (whether you agree or not is irrelevant). If you can’t understand that, your thinking is flawed.

      1. As I said, character and life experience matters. I suppose that’s a legitimate matter of contention, but it’s not flawed thinking, per se.

        1. It absolutely doesn’t matter. Does the technology and medical procedures that the Nazi’s greatly advanced during WWII have any less meaning because of their character and life experiences of said practitioners and engineers? Sophomoric and ludicrous thinking to discount sound argument because of who originated the ideas.

        2. Hey, we’re having a conversation here. There’s no reason to be insulting.
          We clearly disagree. I wish you well.
          Good day.

        3. Does observation require experience? …I guess it helps to understand what you are observing but that would mean that all academics lack experience… which I guess is true to a degree.

  13. Talking about technology as a tool to control and manipulate, Disqus is a very clever way to monitor public opinions. Maybe Roosh ought to implement an in-house registration system like the forum has.

  14. Kaczynski attended Harvard around 1960, when leftist social criticism emphasized that the late capitalist form of society produces all of this harmful “alienation” that a socialist alternative kind of society would resolve.
    Apparently leftists embrace alienation now, given that they want to push together incompatible peoples from random places around the world, whether they can get along or not. (Not like this has gotten much attention in the news lately.) I can give you an example from my mother’s town of Springdale, Arkansas, just to show how random this has gotten:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/us/for-marshall-islanders-hopes-and-troubles-in-arkansas.html
    The left’s sexual agenda also pushes alienation, big time. Progressives want women to use hormonal contraception so that they can have sterile, alienating sexual encounters with men who don’t give a crap about them after the men ejaculate and leave.
    And you can’t get much more alienating than a lot of gay behavior, now institutionally supported by the left, which involves objectifying men’s bodies and engaging in medically damaging sex acts with strangers in public restrooms, seedy night clubs, gay bath houses and on sex tourism trips to poor countries.
    I find this last part especially puzzling, because if the capitalist sins by objectifying his factory worker’s body and using it instrumentally as a tool of production, how does that differ from the gay man who objectifies the penis of another strange gay man he has no intention of getting to know as a person after using this body part for a sex act?

    1. “The left’s sexual agenda also pushes alienation, big time. Progressives want women to use hormonal contraception so that they can have sterile, alienating sexual encounters with men who don’t give a crap about them after they ejaculate and leave.”
      Well put.
      “sex tourism trips to poor countries.
      I find this last part especially puzzling”
      The developed West has always enjoyed the ‘fruits’ of it’s development by outsourcing all the barbaric shit to the third world. Factories and rent boys. Everything is cheaper even human life.

  15. Very interesting read.
    This guy was smart but he didn’t know about Jesus.
    Aint all about being smart and having it all worked out.
    I must say I’m also glad to see the ‘I’m getting a bit bored with game’ vibe from Roosh.
    This is a really important role the game guru’s need to play.
    You’ll never love a girl you’ve had to game. You’ll only resent her.
    And you can be as good with women as you want you still gotta meet someone you like.

  16. If technological advancement does correlate with greater wealth, then society will indeed continue further down the path of “niceness” and therefore, degeneracy. Hence the need for regular conflict, new frontiers, insecurity, and social inequality.
    But shrinking away from technology is clearly not the answer. I happen to think transhumanism is inevitable within a few centuries. Who knows how the New Man will shape his society?

  17. Actually, to Terry “Death to Equality” Xu’s point about frontiers, had we *really* pursued advancing hard core space technology instead of retreating back and restricting ourselves to satellites, we’d have new frontiers to explore with space that are never ending. Colonies popping up on Mars, the moon, Europa, wherever, and eventually to the stars, all requiring hard core rugged individualism while simultaneously punishing, through death by nature’s hard fist, stupid atomist pampered no-common-sense equalists and leftists.

    1. Well it did take the Cold War to push all that along
      Without that kind of rivalry and conflict, societies, especially democracies, become very inward-looking

      1. I don’t think we need conflict, just a sense of competition or finding something new for market. Rather what spurred Columbus to launch his ships.
        Besides, fuck government space exploration. I’m hoping that private space agencies start doing more and greater things. My hope is riding on Richard Branson and great men like him.

    2. Sounds good in theory but it would still take a few hundred years(if not more) to truly establish colonies in space. Remember the cycles of empires. The fact that we worship and constantly congratulate/reward actors and ‘celebrities’ instead of inventors, and scientists tells you everything you need to know about were we stand.
      On a side note, apparently we still haven’t properly explored the depth of the oceans. Would be cool if we discovered some intelligent humanoid species down there.

  18. Aside from a few talking points, I can generally agree with many of his sentiments. The trends are quite obvious when you take into account the surge of the beta man. Even the term alpha can be a misnomer as what is that even? The guy who stole your girl? The one who is superior in the one job you met him at? Is the alpha the one proven superior to you in a fight? Nature took care of all of that before we came around and we are using commerce, keenly gained through technology to supplant alphaness. If you made it to 18, you bet your ass you were an alpha. Now, our bodies listless, minds listless, and souls on a course to digging into ourselves as we are ignoring biological imperative. We may never need the sexbots as if Japan is any indication, we will be so disgusted with each other that we will quietly opt out of reproduction. Maybe that is part of the move to have gays adopt children and creating fictitious monetary amounts, like college funds and schooling, to drive down the intelligent minds from reproducing.
    While on the one hand, I won’t admit he was ahead of his time, moreso he drew upon a natural conclusion for an above average mind when given the chances to draw on a conclusion unhindered. Unfortunately, as some have already stated destroying technology isn’t the answer per se. We have depended on this for so long we need to weaned off. Eliminating technology, while it would destroy the goliath in place, and greatly boost societal morale and jettison the lives dependent on machines, will also bring on an interesting case of savagery. Several movies depict this scenario and I’m inclined to believe it is right.
    Knowing what systems are in play, in a clear manner is a great gift. While a very depressing notion, I have long suspected that much of our activities and “dreams” are frivolous in the grand scheme of things. And I do mean in conjunction with our earthly goals such as continuing the species and our clan goals. Many things do appear pleasing but my goal in life was never to delay the process of procreation. There is also a very noticeable trend of those who existed solely through creative means and an inclination towards suicide. One author, Arthur Conan Doyle comes to mind. Be careful gents as this is pretty close to the hotbed that is our matrix.

    1. One thing to keep in mind. If science is correct in much of the work it’s been doing over the last 100 years, we need technology to continue the species. One day in the far future, we’ll either need to have escaped this solar system or end with it. If we haven’t ended already. Technology may have the power to save or destroy us.

    2. “we will be so disgusted with each other that we will quietly opt out of reproduction”
      This sums me up, good sir.

  19. The biggest threat is the push towards cashless economy with technology. Another one is Artificial Intelligence … and Sexbots.
    And it’s already happening. In Greece any bill over 70 euro can only be paid by cheque or credit card.

    1. Then all your assets can be seized with the click of a button. The government does this now by freezing bank accounts domestic and foreign. It’s one reason I hope a tangible asset like gold/silver has any value in the future – my guess though guns, ammo, and whoever controls the fresh water supply will be king.

      1. In the future, using advanced materials science technology, they will literally be able to make gold like the alchemists dreamed in the past, it will become cheap due to over-supply, its just a chunk of metal with some chemical properties after all
        or, a better material will replace it in the electronics industry such as carbon nanotubes
        the idea that they have not found a cheap way to make gold in a secret lab somewhere already, is preposterous
        diamonds can also be manufactured and are exactly the same as naturally occuring ones

        1. The processes that change carbon to diamond are quite a bit less complex and much less expensive than changing another element into gold.

      2. Gold can be ordered for confiscation, it’s easily justifiable to the masses who would believe anything on the news.
        The single currencies like the Euro, the Internet, the social media, the smart phones, technology worship (Apple) were all created to facilitate a system of cashless economy.
        Without the technological breakthroughs underlying the development of high speed microprocessors, computers, and digital storage combined with the vast communications networks resulting from building the Internet and wireless communications systems, the cashless commerce would simply not function.
        And it can only be done if there’s one world government. So the recent immigration crisis, the destruction of the family and the nations are all part of this process.
        The book of Revelation describes a cashless society in the last days.
        Revelation 13:16-18
        He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

  20. The culture will collapse from its own weight. The economy will probably serve as the main trigger. Time is the only unpredictable variable, but human behavior will revert back to traditionalism when the dominoes begin to fall.

  21. What about the massive welfare state? How influential is that towards the degradation of morality and tradition? Technology makes our lives more comfortable there is no doubt about that. But, if you want to be successful in life you still need traditional virtues, period full stop. Anything goes, its not my fault but someone else’s, no standards, I’ll wear what I want…I can only see a swift removal from officer selection or an employment at will contract on Wall Street…and, frankly, such a subject would never be considered in the first place. In some instances technology has influenced cultural decline, we can point to contraception for instance. But, it pales in comparison to the impact of the welfare state. Technology makes things easier, but, guess what work still sucks, paying bills still sucks, money issues still suck…life still sucks in 2015. So there are plenty of stressors out there for people to gravitate towards virtue or “tradition”, if you will. Plenty of reasons for people to drop to their knees and ask God for help. Welfare, on the other hand, makes for no stressors. Work stress – you don’t work. Bills? Paid. Need medicine? Paid. Money? Paid to you. So, what else is there to do? Maybe play video games, do nothing or smoke weed, drink beers and fuck…well that got old so lets smoke crack, drink more and fuck anything and everything. Technology hasn’t absolved us from responsibility, welfare, on the other hand, does.

    1. The welfare state is no doubt a problem. However, the degeneracy goes far beyond the minority of people who are collecting welfare.

  22. The challenge I have with these sorts of sociological analyses of culture is they so often conflate necessary truths with ones that are merely contingent.
    Technology can never FORCE is to do anything. Leftism is NOT a natural result of increasing technological sophistication. Technology merely gives the leftist the tools to enslave people. It does not MAKE them do it.
    Never forget: Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

  23. With his insights, he should have had the wits to understand that never once have Luddites won.
    All human societies are defined by fierce competition, no one willingly abstains to live at a disadvantage.
    His mad attempt at terrorism only emphasizes the futility of his views.
    There is no going back, the only discussion that matters is how the new is best adopted.
    True, humans are not well adapted for this new world, but within several generations, we’ll be well on our way. Now are the times of grim battle to determine who can adapt to change and who cannot. Who is interred with ancient fossils and who passes on in the story of the species.

  24. Roosh, you might want to read, “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance.” It was a cult hit from the 70s which sold 5 million copies and almost nobody read.
    It ultimately tells the story of the author, a genius with an IQ higher than Kazinski’s, and the mental breakdown that nearly destroyed his life. Schizophrenia, like Kazinski.
    He too had some interesting insights but since he made it through his psychosis he gained a perspective Kazinski lacks.
    I listened to the audio book. Confusing at times, but easier to get through.

  25. Haven’t finished reading this yet but I’m already somewhat disturbed at how readily I am nodding my head to the writings of the Unabomber.
    These are clearly not concerns that have just begun in the millennial generation.
    I hope I am not trapping myself in an unworkable philosophy here. What better path could the Unabomber have taken?

    1. “Haven’t finished reading this yet but I’m already somewhat disturbed at
      how readily I am nodding my head to the writings of the Unabomber.
      These are clearly not concerns that have just begun in the millennial generation.
      I hope I am not trapping myself in an unworkable philosophy here. What better path could the Unabomber have taken?”
      He should have converted to Orthodox Christianity, and become a Fr. Seraphim Rose like figure, instead of murdering people trying to prevent what God has already told us would happen.
      http://oodegr.co/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm
      Project MKUltra:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra
      Ted Kaczynski, Unabomber. From late 1959 to early 1962, Harvard psychologist Henry Murraywas responsible for the ethically questionable, CIA-sponsored MK ULTRA experiments in which twenty-two Harvard undergraduates were used as research subjects.[82][83] Among other purposes, Murray’s experiments focused on measuring people’s reactions under extreme stress. The unwitting undergraduates were submitted to what Murray himself called “vehement, sweeping and personally abusive” attacks. Assaults to their egos, cherished ideas and beliefs were the vehicle used to cause high levels of stress and distress. Among them was 17-year-old Ted Kaczynski, who went on to become the Unabomber, a serial killer targeting academics and technologists. [[84]] Alston Chase’s book Harvard and the Unabomber: The Education of an American Terrorist connects Kaczynski’s abusive experiences under Murray to his later criminal career.

  26. Excellent article. Technology in modernity is not something that has merely functional or utilitarian purposes unlike in other eras where machines or techniques were designed or introduced to improve, often radically, certain processes we could all experience viscerally in the real world. Technology in modern societies often seems to occlude, obscure and hide this relationship, for example with both cars and aircraft in which the mechanics that once let you intuitively understand and grasp the dynamics and science behind a particular system or component are these days completely distorted by the on-board computer management systems. Although these systems undoubtedly improve the fuel efficiency of a car or various flight management controls on an aircraft, they actually distance and “unrelate” both the driver and the pilot from the intuitive knowledge and skills, like hand flying an aircraft on a difficult approach, that many pilots find that newer, highly computerized aircraft can never give them, unlike the older generation of aircraft that taught pilots the business of flying.
    I believe society is wandering further and further from the founding utilitarian principle which related function and purpose into something that was readily understandable by even the layman, in terms of what a new machine or technique did. What’s incredible over the last 20 years is the proliferation of essentially useless technology and gadgets that actually have no utilitarian purpose because they lack any intrinsic relationship with any function or purpose in the real world. The only value this technology has is in terms of its value as a social/fashion item, smartphones, software launches etc. This technology teaches you nothing new about the world. There’s no sense of exploration, of breaking new barriers, of seeing over new horizons. It makes us docile, conformist and herd like, and eventually dulls the imagination and the intellect, until we all become happy button pressers……..pressing buttons to what ends we won’t know why or even care about anymore.

    1. Drawing from both Ted’s writing here and Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson”, we must think about the seen and the unseen. While a pilotless plane may shave a few dollars off the cost of pilot salaries, there is a butterfly effect of things that will never happen. For example, the pilot that never sees the wide open spaces and never gets inspired by the vast, expansive sky to invent something, never travels around the world and is exposed to different cultures, never meets the woman from an exotic culture that in an alternate universe he marries and has a large family with. When we are all dull drone automotans, we really do become Idiocracy dwellers. This is our future.

      1. Nice analogy. I hope your last insight isn’t 100% accurate, but, the uncanny way that the continuous use of social technology seems to make these types of users behave more and more like automatons is something I’ve noticed very pointedly in the last few years. This type of technology does create dependency based behavior that’s highly reactive to frivolous stimuli. It also, disrupts the power of the mind to concentrate and penetrate matters more deeply, by constantly interrupting that process, and acting as a deterrent against that essential privacy which the mind needs to comprehend the world more thoroughly.

        1. I had a conversation a few days ago with a woman about a ridiculous $12 monthly fee on my bank account. It was a young sounding white woman in the US, and she had no soul or personality. I have worked customer service jobs, and yes they strongly encourage script reading, but I wondered what had happened in this woman’s life to literally destroy any personality at all. She said I could get around the fee by using my ATM card 12 times in a month, and I replied, I’m a bachelor, I don’t buy anywhere near enough stuff to use my card that much. No laughter, no response, just “hm, the system is not allowing me to automatically grant a refund, please hold and I will discuss with my supervisor.”
          There is the frog boiling in water component, that Ted mentions. I was thinking today how when I first got the app “whatsapp” (free text, picture, and voice between anyone anywhere in the world– a lot of foreign chicks use this) I was shocked and laughed at how they expected you to give them your real phone number, as if I would ever consider doing such a thing. Just a couple of years later, so many apps ask for this, and even though I don’t comply, it doesn’t seem like a big deal anymore. Slowly life is becoming more soulless and less diverse and interesting.

        2. The story about the young white soulless woman resonates a lot with what I observe with the generation that are less than 30. It’s not that some of these people are innately moronic, but their responses have that eerie, unsettling, uncanny (German unheimlich) like affect about them. When speaking with them, either in person or over the phone, there’s that programmed sense about their every word, even their movements that gives you that tangible sense of dislocation that makes their behavior more akin to something vaguely robotic, or, inhumanely human, that distorts our perceptions and gives you that chill down the back of the spine feeling.
          I believe much of our growing unease and disquiet with particular types of social technologies and the self evident ways they’re profoundly altering meaningful human relationships relates to the mimesis of that “something other than human”, that could become the norm in the future. I cannot describe it as robotic or computational based behavior, it’s a type of behavior in which the ancient antithesis between the rational and irrational has been totally subsumed into a ludicrously narrow functional range of reactions and actions that truly seems to be inhuman, uncanny, weird and deeply troubling. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3606d2a8e8daf668576d04753a634fe65f46f58ae7904d724eed95ee73dd9605.jpg

  27. Through no fault of our own, we are like the Greyhound chasing the iron rabbit.
    Guess what happens if the dogs catches it?
    I’ve heard the dog is so disappointed it never races again.
    We are driven to gratify our needs but we’ve never asked ourselves, “What then?”
    Our needs are saited. Now what? And will anything ever be as gratifying as that?
    Is that why the rich climb Everest? Hunt safari? Not “because its there,” but because there is nothing they HAVE to do?

      1. True, and a valuable thought to develop. But I didn’t mention happiness.
        We are moving beyond need satiation. It has always been assumed by the elites that the masses were incapable of handling freedom from subsistence living and the state of the poor in America seems to validate that opinion.
        Give them Breads and Circuses. Or in the case of the modern male, video games and porn.

        1. Basically just the dog awakening from The Matrix and realizing it no longer wants to chase rabbits the way Neo didn’t want to be a human battery for the machines.

        2. I see. Makes sense. I was hoping for a metaphorical application to the post-Red Pill man’s life but the dogs apparently just give up.
          I have a friend who rescues greyhounds and some can make the transition to normal-dog life but some can’t.
          I imagine some men can’t adjust to the reality of the feminine imperative and seeing the true nature of women. Like cipher, they want to believe.
          “I look at this hot chick and I know the Matrix is telling me she loves me for myself and she wants to jump my bones and suck my dick and can’t wait to satisdy my every deaire for the rest of our life together. But my brain is telling me she is only attracted to me because of my money and her need to secure her future provisioning.
          “After seeing both sides of the issue, do you know what I’ve realized? Ignorance is bliss.”

      1. Perhaps. But I wonder if any of the MGTOW have yet realized that you can both go your own way AND bring a woman along for the ride?
        Just don’t let her drive or navigate and be prepared to kick her out of the car the moment she starts interfering with the trip.

  28. Has anyone noticed all the insidious small taxes being brought in by western governments? Property, water, other income taxes which amount to double taxation. Tech is making it so much easier for governments to chase down individuals that don’t pay and then you are subject to fines and public shaming. It is communism by any other name. There will be no escape, you will pay for the malingerers, the bastards, the victims, the mistakes and health care of minorities and illegal immigrants.
    I remember reading articles about the Unabomber years go, his manifesto, the harm he caused. An unstable individual. However he made some relevant points re modern technology and its influence on society.
    In the meantime it is up to the individual to survive the rough seas and build a life away from the indoctrination of the shitlibs and the other degenerates. Best of luck.

  29. Technology, or should I say the advancement of technology has always been part of the human condition. I always laugh at the clowns that hate technology while they use their laptop, watch TV, use an elevator etc. The reason why we were able to escape the Animal food chain was because of our manipulation of nature- making fires, building well, creating weapons out of sticks and stones for self defense or hunting and our ability to create, innovate and invent ingenious devices. At the end of the day, nothing is perfect, some inventions have been detrimental to human progression others proven to be highly important.

    1. I think it is more the form that technology takes, than it is the technology itself. What does the average man own, the machinery that allows him to produce and feed himself, or a random assortment of ‘consumer goods’ that produce little to nothing of value? when that is the case, what can be expected except the political evisceration of the individual. People have made themselves powerless–lacking any control over anything useful–and thus they are powerless.

  30. Interesting to note. “The Matrix Reloaded”, and I can’t mention it without saying it was terrible, was all about the question of freedom vs. control via technology.
    “We control these machines that keep us alive, ” Neo said to the Councilman. “That means we can destroy them if we choose.”
    Left unsaid, “Yes, Neo, we can. And then we would die. Is that the kind of “freedom” you want? The freedom to drive on the opposite side of the street?”
    Every one of us is free to walk off the grid any time we want. Kazinski did. But then he couldn’t leave the system alone. If he had he’d still be living free. Even in Soviet Russia, there were people who lived relatively free of communism. They chose to live in Siberia.

    1. Quote: “Left unsaid, “Yes, Neo, we can. And then we would die. Is that the kind of “freedom” you want? The freedom to drive on the opposite side of the street?”
      Every one of us is free to walk off the grid any time we want. Kazinski did. But then he couldn’t leave the system alone. If he had he’d still be living free. Even in Soviet Russia, there were people who lived relatively free of communism. They chose to live in Siberia.”
      You made some inportant points. I recall reading the book “Into The Wild” when it was first released, a very intriguing read, and I will recommend the movie of the same name (directed by Sean Penn). The problem with scraping the modern world of one’s shoe and “living off the grid” is that is requires others to do so. What if one becomes sick? This is what lead to Mcandliss’s death. He died from not having the correct survival skills. When he got ill he was alone. This is yet another flaw with the modern man; barring the very rare exceptions, he cannot go at it alone. And, in the not so distant future, if small groups go at it alone then they hit the matrix radar and then will rounded up and sent to FEMA.
      And this takes us back to Stefan Molyneux “Story Of Your Enslavement” assertion that we are all human livestock. Leave the farm he says, but then that puts one back in a very unpragmatic way of existing.
      The ultimate way to be truly free is to be free of the human condition by terminating one’s life. It’s morbid, I know. And don’t fool yourself: governments want to prevent suicide because a dead man in the matrix is one less tax revenue generating cog in the machine that won’t be available to produce for them. So it comes as no surpriae they want to address this issue, but for reasons other then your well being.

      1. I am trying to remember the source, but I read a book which asserted that the one thing you do not find in nature is a single homo sapien. We are, by our nature, a pack animal. We always live in groups. To talk of “returning to nature” ALONE is an oxymoron.
        This is NOT some new limitation of modern man. A defect we recently developed.
        It is interesting how often nihilists and atheists arrive at the same philosophical conclusion. That the only “sane” thing for a man to do when confronted with the limitations of his nature and the innate restrictions imposed upon his Will by reality is Suicide. And this from the same people who insist that all that is, is nature.
        So why isn’t it enough? Why rebel against reality if reality is all that is? How were you even able to come up with the idea of suicide?
        Remember Rust Cohle’s great speech from “True Detective”? ” Evolution made a mistake… ” and the only Rational thing to do is “refuse (?) Our programming, stop reproducing and walk hand in hand into extinction.”
        Atheism is a Nothing. A Void. A philosophical Black Hole . It answers no questions, produces nothing of value. Inspires no creation.
        Atheism is a Cosmic Cop Out.
        Oh, and there are no FEMA camps. No one is going to come for you. You’re just not that important to anyone but yourself and those you manage to convince to love and care about you.

    2. Matrix 2 and 3 really sucked. With all the money they spent, you would have thought they would pay for decent writing.

      1. Yeah, it’s amazing what $200 million can’t buy.
        The fact is they wrote themselves into a corner. If they succeeded in destroying the machines billions of humans would have died. The most they could hope for was for a truce with Zion. Not all that exciting.
        “Yay! The war is over! The machines aren’t going to destroy us!”
        Come to think of it, that WAS the conclusion.

  31. “A worldwide economic collapse may temporarily bruise the elite and usher in a mini-age of traditionalism, but once the world recovers, they’ll likely resume right where they left off.”
    Thats the way it always is. After every major war, dust settles and it’s the usual game of “King of the hill” by adults. Remember as kids, one kid would stand on top of a small dirt hill or snow hill and the first kid who pushes the one on the top off the hill takes his place. Only in the adult world it is via banking infrastructures and technology to control the human livestock. I’m glad not to ever have had a kid and to be an evolutionary dead-ender:

  32. I make the appeal often for people to study what was done between 1890 and 1920. This period, especially 1910-1915, is remarkable in how it created the world we live in today. Some aspects start before this period but this is when they became more universal, cemented, effective.
    The present “public” school system we have in the USA is an engineered interloper. It is based on the Prussian system and replaced the previous school systems which were locally controlled. It was to turn people into fungible human resources for the military, government, and corporations. Charter schools, vouchers for school choice, and more are but means to further centralize and make schools unaccountable on the local level.

  33. It’s too bad that Kaczynski didn’t have the internet back then to help spread his message. If he did, maybe he wouldn’t have resorted to his tactics.

    1. yeah, i bet living in a world with even MORE technology would have made him change his mind about killing.

      1. Ha! Good point. But as I point out in another comment, even the off grid survivalists manage to post to their blogs and YouTube accounts regularly.
        Like Yogi Beara said, “No one goes there any more. It’s too crowded.”
        “Everyone on the internet hates what technology is doing to us. It’s all some of them post about.”

  34. Please, Roosh, let’s not give this guy another platform. Teddy Boy, like most conservatives offers nothing except violence. He truly should have killed himself to put himself out of his own misery. He is the exact professor that he complains about, but just a little bit more hands-on in killing and doing away with those that disagree with him. Articles like these make me want to erase this account, and give creedence to the haters of the manosphere.

    1. Why do so many people want to censor and limit the subjects coveted by this site? If you want to read the conformist drivel published by the MSM, and much of it is good and definitely well-written, then go there and don’t come here.
      I like the eclectic and strange mix of articles I find here. If you don’t like it, don’t read it.

      1. I can not and will not defend a murderer, especially one that is driven by resentiment as K was. His “manifesto” is as droll and worthless as those that he criticises and murdered in cold blood. “Censor”? Certainly not. Celebrate a murderer and his idle cant? Certainly not.

        1. Imagine! And I never said one word in support of Crazy Ted. Nor did Roosh, that I recall. He certainly didn’t “celebrate” him.
          I have read “Mein Kampt”. If I recommended it to you would you think I was endorsing its content? If I thought Hitler evaluated Germany’s situation from a unique perspective would you accused me of supporting Nazism?
          I hope not.
          You sound like you want to censor this site. Grown ups discuss grown up subjects and not all of them are pretty or easy to parse.

        2. So you are consistent in your fight to censor viewpoints you disagree with. I think you’ve made that clear.
          I oppose that position.

        3. I am not a relativist: the whole “different viewpoint” and “perspectival-thing” isn’t my bag. American enemies never get my support or interest.

        4. Again, interesting. However, no one has mentioned “relativism”. A different perspective is not relativism. Two men can agree on an objective standard but still disagree on whether a certain behavior violates that standard. Their difference is based on their individual perspective.
          There are 7 billion people in this world and they all see the world from a different perspective. That is a psychological fact. Societies are built around our common or agreed perspectives.Anyone may ” become an American ” if they are willing to adopt an American perspective. An American mindset.
          If not, and we don’t eject them quickly, they become a cancer to this country.

        5. Non-sequitur. Every point if view is a point of blindness. Three blind men describing an elephant are describing their different perspective of the same elephant but the elephant objectively exists.
          Evil does not express another perspective of an objective truth, but a distortion of a true perspective. The fact that it can be hard to tell which is which is a challenge to our intelligence, not a proof that different perspectives are inherently evil.
          “Thinking is hard work. Which is why so few engage in it.”

        6. Point-of-view is relevant only when sensory experience is at play, because we all interpret our sensory experiences in a different fashion. However, when “good” and “bad” and the judgement of such acts are at play point-of-view is of no concern unless different narratives are competing in the face of punishment : one narrative correctly representing the situation or another narrative incorrectly representing the situation. Yes, Unabomber and Mao unjustly killed, therefore, they are evil.

        7. You are talking as though someone here approved of Kazynski’s (or Mao’s???) actions.
          I’ll bet you think we shouldn’t ever analyse “The Prince” because Some people consider it evil as well.

        8. Non-sequitur. Your willingness to obey laws is irrelevant to the purpose of your posts here. Here you have been advocating censorship of ideas based on whether you approve of the person whose ideas we are discussing.
          Nietzsche was a loon who’s syphilitic insanity ought to be taken into account when discussing his ideas; however, they should be accepted or rejected on their content alone and not the fact that he went insane.
          Same with Kazynski.

        9. I hold Nietzsche to be a poet of the radically, subjective Cartesian ego, of course speaking in a metaphysical sense. Teddy K and Mao are politically anti-American espousing lawlessness. No, I am not sensoring; I am saying that they are both unhealthy to any thinking that is Western or American in nature.

        10. Then write an article in support of your ideas and relate it in som e way to modern culture and masculinity and see what kind of a response you get.

        11. Good call. I surely won’t be using men that kill their own people by the millions (Mao) or a man(Teddy) that is in maximum security for life.

  35. Ship of Fools
    by Ted Kaczynski
    Once upon a time, the captain and the mates of a ship grew so vain of their seamanship, so full of hubris and so impressed with themselves, that they went mad. They turned the ship north and sailed until they met with icebergs and dangerous floes, and they kept sailing north into more and more perilous waters, solely in order to give themselves opportunities to perform ever-more-brilliant feats of seamanship.
    As the ship reached higher and higher latitudes, the passengers and crew became increasingly uncomfortable. They began quarreling among themselves and complaining of the conditions under which they lived.
    “Shiver me timbers,” said an able seaman, “if this ain’t the worst voyage I’ve ever been on. The deck is slick with ice; when I’m on lookout the wind cuts through me jacket like a knife; every time I reef the foresail I blamed-near freeze me fingers; and all I get for it is a miserable five shillings a month!”
    “You think you have it bad!” said a lady passenger. “I can’t sleep at night for the cold. Ladies on this ship don’t get as many blankets as the men. It isn’t fair!”
    A Mexican sailor chimed in: “¡Chingado! I’m only getting half the wages of the Anglo seamen. We need plenty of food to keep us warm in this climate, and I’m not getting my share; the Anglos get more. And the worst of it is that the mates always give me orders in English instead of Spanish.”
    “I have more reason to complain than anybody,” said an American Indian sailor. “If the palefaces hadn’t robbed me of my ancestral lands, I wouldn’t even be on this ship, here among the icebergs and arctic winds. I would just be paddling a canoe on a nice, placid lake. I deserve compensation. At the very least, the captain should let me run a crap game so that I can make some money.”
    The bosun spoke up: “Yesterday the first mate called me a ‘fruit’ just because I suck cocks. I have a right to suck cocks without being called names for it!”
    It’s not only humans who are mistreated on this ship,” interjected an animal-lover among the passengers, her voice quivering with indignation. “Why, last week I saw the second mate kick the ship’s dog twice!”
    One of the passengers was a college professor. Wringing his hands he exclaimed,
    “All this is just awful! It’s immoral! It’s racism, sexism, speciesism, homophobia, and exploitation of the working class! It’s discrimination! We must have social justice: Equal wages for the Mexican sailor, higher wages for all sailors, compensation for the Indian, equal blankets for the ladies, a guaranteed right to suck cocks, and no more kicking the dog!”
    “Yes, yes!” shouted the passengers. “Aye-aye!” shouted the crew. “It’s discrimination! We have to demand our rights!”
    The cabin boy cleared his throat.
    “Ahem. You all have good reasons to complain. But it seems to me that what we really have to do is get this ship turned around and headed back south, because if we keep going north we’re sure to be wrecked sooner or later, and then your wages, your blankets, and your right to suck cocks won’t do you any good, because we’ll all drown.”
    But no one paid any attention to him, because he was only the cabin boy.
    The captain and the mates, from their station on the poop deck, had been watching and listening. Now they smiled and winked at one another, and at a gesture from the captain the third mate came down from the poop deck, sauntered over to where the passengers and crew were gathered, and shouldered his way in amongst them. He put a very serious expression on his face and spoke thusly:
    “We officers have to admit that some really inexcusable things have been happening on this ship. We hadn’t realized how bad the situation was until we heard your complaints. We are men of good will and want to do right by you. But — well — the captain is rather conservative and set in his ways, and may have to be prodded a bit before he’ll make any substantial changes. My personal opinion is that if you protest vigorously — but always peacefully and without violating any of the ship’s rules — you would shake the captain out of his inertia and force him to address the problems of which you so justly complain.”
    Having said this, the third mate headed back toward the poop deck. As he went, the passengers and crew called after him, “Moderate! Reformer! Goody-liberal! Captain’s stooge!” But they nevertheless did as he said. They gathered in a body before the poop deck, shouted insults at the officers, and demanded their rights: “I want higher wages and better working conditions,” cried the able seaman. “Equal blankets for women,” cried the lady passenger. “I want to receive my orders in Spanish,” cried the Mexican sailor. “I want the right to run a crap game,” cried the Indian sailor. “I don’t want to be called a fruit,” cried the bosun. “No more kicking the dog,” cried the animal lover. “Revolution now,” cried the professor.
    The captain and the mates huddled together and conferred for several minutes, winking, nodding and smiling at one another all the while. Then the captain stepped to the front of the poop deck and, with a great show of benevolence, announced that the able seaman’s wages would be raised to six shillings a month; the Mexican sailor’s wages would be raised to two-thirds the wages of an Anglo seaman, and the order to reef the foresail would be given in Spanish; lady passengers would receive one more blanket; the Indian sailor would be allowed to run a crap game on Saturday nights; the bosun wouldn’t be called a fruit as long as he kept his cocksucking strictly private; and the dog wouldn’t be kicked unless he did something really naughty, such as stealing food from the galley.
    The passengers and crew celebrated these concessions as a great victory, but the next morning, they were again feeling dissatisfied.
    “Six shillings a month is a pittance, and I still freeze me fingers when I reef the foresail,” grumbled the able seaman. “I’m still not getting the same wages as the Anglos, or enough food for this climate,” said the Mexican sailor. “We women still don’t have enough blankets to keep us warm,” said the lady passenger. The other crewmen and passengers voiced similar complaints, and the professor egged them on.
    When they were done, the cabin boy spoke up — louder this time so that the others could not easily ignore him:
    “It’s really terrible that the dog gets kicked for stealing a bit of bread from the galley, and that women don’t have equal blankets, and that the able seaman gets his fingers frozen; and I don’t see why the bosun shouldn’t suck cocks if he wants to. But look how thick the icebergs are now, and how the wind blows harder and harder! We’ve got to turn this ship back toward the south, because if we keep going north we’ll be wrecked and drowned.”
    “Oh yes,” said the bosun, “It’s just so awful that we keep heading north. But why should I have to keep cocksucking in the closet? Why should I be called a fruit? Ain’t I as good as everyone else?”
    “Sailing north is terrible,” said the lady passenger. “But don’t you see? That’s exactly why women need more blankets to keep them warm. I demand equal blankets for women now!”
    “It’s quite true,” said the professor, “that sailing to the north imposes great hardships on all of us. But changing course toward the south would be unrealistic. You can’t turn back the clock. We must find a mature way of dealing with the situation.”
    “Look,” said the cabin boy, “If we let those four madmen up on the poop deck have their way, we’ll all be drowned. If we ever get the ship out of danger, then we can worry about working conditions, blankets for women, and the right to suck cocks. But first we’ve got to get this vessel turned around. If a few of us get together, make a plan, and show some courage, we can save ourselves. It wouldn’t take many of us — six or eight would do. We could charge the poop, chuck those lunatics overboard, and turn the ship to the south.”
    The professor elevated his nose and said sternly, “I don’t believe in violence. It’s immoral.”
    “It’s unethical ever to use violence,” said the bosun.
    “I’m terrified of violence,” said the lady passenger.
    The captain and the mates had been watching and listening all the while. At a signal from the captain, the third mate stepped down to the main deck. He went about among the passengers and crew, telling them that there were still many problems on the ship.
    “We have made much progress,” he said, “But much remains to be done. Working conditions for the able seaman are still hard, the Mexican still isn’t getting the same wages as the Anglos, the women still don’t have quite as many blankets as the men, the Indian’s Saturday-night crap game is a paltry compensation for his lost lands, it’s unfair to the bosun that he has to keep his cocksucking in the closet, and the dog still gets kicked at times.
    “I think the captain needs to be prodded again. It would help if you all would put on another protest — as long as it remains nonviolent.”
    As the third mate walked back toward the stern, the passengers and the crew shouted insults after him, but they nevertheless did what he said and gathered in front of the poop deck for another protest. They ranted and raved and brandished their fists, and they even threw a rotten egg at the captain (which he skillfully dodged).
    After hearing their complaints, the captain and the mates huddled for a conference, during which they winked and grinned broadly at one another. Then the captain stepped to the front of the poop deck and announced that the able seaman would be given gloves to keep his fingers warm, the Mexican sailor would receive wages equal to three-fourths the wages of an Anglo seaman, the women would receive yet another blanket, the Indian sailor could run a crap game on Saturday and Sunday nights, the bosun would be allowed to suck cocks publicly after dark, and no one could kick the dog without special permission from the captain.
    The passengers and crew were ecstatic over this great revolutionary victory, but by the next morning they were again feeling dissatisfied and began grumbling about the same old hardships.
    The cabin boy this time was getting angry.
    “You damn fools!” he shouted. “Don’t you see what the captain and the mates are doing? They’re keeping you occupied with your trivial grievances about blankets and wages and the dog being kicked so that you won’t think about what is really wrong with this ship — that it’s getting farther and farther to the north and we’re all going to be drowned. If just a few of you would come to your senses, get together, and charge the poop deck, we could turn this ship around and save ourselves. But all you do is whine about petty little issues like working conditions and crap games and the right to suck cocks.”
    The passengers and the crew were incensed.
    “Petty!!” cried the Mexican, “Do you think it’s reasonable that I get only three-fourths the wages of an Anglo sailor? Is that petty?”
    “How can you call my grievance trivial? shouted the bosun. “Don’t you know how humiliating it is to be called a fruit?”
    “Kicking the dog is not a ‘petty little issue!’” screamed the animal-lover. “It’s heartless, cruel, and brutal!”
    “Alright then,” answered the cabin boy. “These issues are not petty and trivial. Kicking the dog is cruel and brutal and it is humiliating to be called a fruit. But in comparison to our real problem — in comparison to the fact that the ship is still heading north — your grievances are petty and trivial, because if we don’t get this ship turned around soon, we’re all going to drown.”
    “Fascist!” said the professor.
    “Counterrevolutionary!” said the lady passenger. And all of the passengers and crew chimed in one after another, calling the cabin boy a fascist and a counterrevolutionary. They pushed him away and went back to grumbling about wages, and about blankets for women, and about the right to suck cocks, and about how the dog was treated. The ship kept sailing north, and after a while it was crushed between two icebergs and everyone drowned.

  36. It is best to adapt to circumstances as they are and exploit them to your own advantage, as mankind has always done. Profit from technology but don’t enslave yourself to it. Have children, whose descendants may or may not survive in the world to come. It is foreseeable that only a small tribal elite will remain at the helm of the cyborg future, allowing the rest of humanity to starve or perhaps even exterminating them, but, then again, perhaps your own posterity will prevail and persist in some form or other. Just gotta roll the dice.

  37. Which US state is the most free that we could flock to with our guns and politically incorrect speech? Which state could we most easily take political control of by carpet bagging it?

    1. A number of years ago there was a libertarian project proposed to take over New Hampshire. They figured they could do it with as few as 20,000 people.
      Don’t know what happened to it. Wasn’t following it.

    2. Wyoming would be my pick. It is the most rural state, the second reddest state in the country, and arguably the one with the least influential state government.

  38. The Unabomber was an evil man, no doubt about that, but his ideas on the harmfulness of technology really strike a chord with me. Leftists love the increased technology of the modern era such as television, the Internet, Facebook, online dating, etc, for two primary reasons: these forces take away responsibility, and thus facilitate the destruction of masculinity. Men of nowadays who spend close to half of their time chatting on Facebook, watching television, or gratifying themselves to Internet porn/sluts are, without a doubt, far less masculine than their grandfathers, most of whom performed manual labor, fought for their country, and had the obligation of going out and actually meeting and wooing/seducing women. Modern technology has harmed modern men far more than it has women; is it any coincidence that all the industrialized nations are by far the most feminist? I am not saying that we should illegalize usage of modern technology such as the web (I, and most people on this site would probably be severely punished if such a law were passed), but those who care about the future of this country should look at it critically for what it truly is, both positively and negatively, and utilize it in moderation rather than depending on it primarily.

  39. Christ, Marx, Wood, Wei
    Led us to this perfect day.
    Wei, Christ, Marx Wood
    Made us humble, made us good.
    Wood, Wei, Christ, Marx
    Freed us all from greed and strife.
    Marx, Wood, Wei, Christ
    All but Wei were sacrificed.
    Children’s rhyme from “This Perfect Day” by Ira Levin. A novel about better living through chemistry.

  40. “Appearance Is Ideology” (on RooshV.com) was, I formerly thought, a reaction to reading Kaczynski, as the “Leftists hate success because they themselves are unsuccessful” ideology is pure Kaczynski.
    Yet, that post was written back in March, before Roosh had read Kaczynski—showing that true Truth is timeless.
    Leftists don’t care about “equality” because they care about the downtrodden, but because they don’t measure up to the successful. They can achieve “equality” only by tearing down those they envy.
    If you must lie to YOURSELF to achieve your goals, you’re done, as surely as Lucifer sealed his fate when he decided he was greater than his creator.

  41. While I can see the validity of Kaczynski’s words, I cannot abide by them. Well, at least not all of them. The fact that he is a murderer as well definitely does not help. I think one of the best books I’ve read is “How I found freedom in an unfree world” by Harry Browne. Heck I don’t think you even need to buy it from Amazon (unless you want an actual copy). You can read it from the link here: http://metaphysicspirit.com/books/How%20I%20Found%20Freedom%20in%20an%20Unfree%20World.pdf

  42. Beware:
    A considerable amount of credible circumstantial evidence suggests that Theodore Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, participated in CIA-sponsored MKUltra experiments conducted at Harvard University from the fall of 1959 through the spring of 1962. During World War II, Henry Murray, the lead researcher in the Harvard experiments, served with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which was a forerunner of the CIA. Murray applied for a grant funded by the United States Navy, and his Harvard stress experiments strongly resembled those run by the OSS. Beginning at the age of sixteen, Kaczynski participated along with twenty-one other undergraduate students in the Harvard experiments, which have been described as “disturbing” and “ethically indefensible.”
    (http://leaksource.info/2012/11/29/lawful-unabombers-cia-sponsored-mkultra-experiments-at-harvard/)
    The Unabomber’s brother wrote an article in 2010 asking, “Was my brother, Ted Kaczynski (AKA “the Unabomber”), a sort of “Manchurian candidate” – programmed to kill by our government in a CIA-funded thought-control experiment gone awry?”
    (http://blog.timesunion.com/kaczynski/ted-and-the-cia-part-1/271/)
    Beware: we’re being maneuvered into a new religious paradigm.
    Ever so slowly, and ever so slyly. The spiritual aspirations of mankind must be harnessed and channeled to support the intended agenda, and that’s why the pope is playing by those rules. There will be other “spiritual voices”. It’s been planned.
    WE ARE BEING TAKEN BACK TO A DARK AGE, yet another one, one of massive totalitarian control where the masses are made of robotized lobotomized willing “believers.” Another Inquisition is already at work. It seems that it is more and more forbidden to think anything that does not fit the globalist totalitarian fascist agenda of the suppression of all individual freedoms, and that belief has to come before knowledge gathered through sound scientific method, so that reality has to conform to the preconditioned fantasy which has been fed to the masses by religions traditions of all kinds and flavors.
    The dumbing down of humanity, its weakening and subjugation is obvious, but it seems that the final stage has yet to come, and that it needs a massive marketing ploy, trough jesuit pope and the media hype and entertainment and UN concurrent support, while the pressure on the unwitting masses’ minds and hearts increases with darkness being called “light”, and subjugation being “tolerance”, “unity” and “prosperity.”
    See also:
    http://www.gnosticmedia.com/manufacturing-the-deadhead-a-product-of-social-engineering-by-joe-atwill-and-jan-irvin/
    Conclusion:
    We must reject all crutches, and walk on your own two solid legs and two solid feet.
    Because we are free, independent MEN who refuse to get manipulated by anyone and anything, including these very words that we are reading now.

      1. How much humanity has been decimated by looking outside for help via forms of external authority?
        A very “captivating” concept and great way to excuse oneself from responsibility in the bargain.
        “Please accept me, oh great Being from beyond” cries the abdicating pawn. Religious affinity befalls sadly abused, programmed and misdirected people who are longing for meaning and acceptance.
        It’s one of the most susceptible of emotions and it’s very cleverly manipulated by “smarter” people.
        One of the tools used to manipulate humanity into “the willing accomplice” is the one of the “archaic revival.” We see a lot of it here.
        Another one is the ‘establishment that you are a sinner’. “I am not worthy” cries the subservient religious practitioner, no matter what carefully contrived religion it is. The abdication of self, sovereignty and rationale, all for a pittance of acceptance and justification for even living at all is the basis for all religions.
        Therefore, I repeat:
        We must reject all crutches, and walk on your own two solid legs and two solid feet.
        Because we are free, independent MEN who refuse to get manipulated by anyone and anything, including these very words that we are reading now.

        1. Fascinating reply. And I never mentioned anything about God or religion.
          It’s as if atheist have such a hole in their souls they have to create a giant, omnipotent, oomnipresent malevolent entity to give them a God-figure to be afraid pf.
          “When men stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing. They will believe in anything.” C.S. Lewis.

        2. The mind, that messy thing, has created and still creates many destructive things. By far the most destructive of them in God. But as long as the mind is there, it is that which is preventing you from understanding things.

        3. So if the mind creates God and God is a false and destructive idea, how can you trust your mind about anything?
          How can you trust it when it tells you you are right not to believe in God?
          Man! You have really dug a pit for yourself. A logical double bind.
          Kirk: “Norman, you can’t trust anything Mr. Spock says because everything he says is a lie.”
          Spock: “I’m lying, Norman.”

        4. It is fear that makes you believe that you are living and that you will be dead.What we do not want is that fear to come to an end, because it guarantees the continuity of thought. Don’t waste more time and energy looking for what does not exist except in your imagination.

        5. This comment is ridiculous for many reasons:
          a) “Atheism” isn’t a union; the denial of absurdity doesn’t make me a member of another group (and their “member,” I am not).
          b) Dependence on/belief in obvious falsity (“god” and religion, a system of control developed by the smartest people in society to control their intellectual subordinates) for supposed morality, a concept which, in and of itself, it baseless.
          c) There is no “soul.” You’re simply an ape + 1% DNA variance.

        6. Troll! (Pointing and shrieking.) Troll!!
          At least I hope for your sake you are a Troll. If you’re not, you are one sick puppy.
          Not to be confused with a sad or rabid puppy.

        7. The one I replied to is the one I replied to.
          Edit: Tom, since you can’t figure it out, I was replying to your idiotic comment.

        8. Asshat.
          I was trying to make sense of your comment so I could understand the points you were trying to make. Apparently you were afraid I might actually do that.
          If you can’t take the hits, stay out of the ring.

        9. Tom, your name-calling and lack of ability to determine which comment (yours) I was responding to confirm to me that you’re a moron. Goodbye.

        10. The failure of a speaker to specify his nouns where more than one exists and thereby generate confusion in his listeners is a common failing many people make. It cannot be the hearer’s fault since he is not a mind reader and the speaker failed to make his point clear.
          By identifying you as an “asshat”, I was merely pointing out both your failure to take reasonable responsibility for your miscommunication and your rudeness in blaming someone else for your own deficiencies.
          Had you been man enough you could have quickly apologized and answered my question, thereby advancing our understanding of your point. You didn’t, therefore you have failed once again.
          Good day to you, sir. GOOD DAY.

        11. The truth is that your original comment was ridiculous, as I clearly made evident. Anything you’ve stated since has been rightfully ignored. Goodbye, Tom.

        12. “Rightfully ignored”?!!
          Responding like a puppy to Pavlov” s bell to everything I’ve said can hardly be called, “ignored”! LOL!
          And I wasn’t even talking to you. You butted in with comments that failed to even address anything I’d said! Which was the main reason I could not discern to whom your comment was addressed.
          Seriously. As I pointed out to “Free*, I had not even mentioned God or religion. He did. And then you did! And your comments made NO Sense!
          Since Free was the one pretending that God had made an appearance in my post, I replied to him – indirectly. Then you came along and shot your warery load onto your own stomach, leaving me confused as to who you were trying to jizz on with your comments.
          ” Now stop RESPONDING to me! I mean it! If you don’t I’m gonna TELL! ”
          Now… Stomp your foot and reply to me yet once again. Demand I play by your rules!
          (**Pats angry omega on the head and coos to quiet his distress at no one taking him seriously.*)

        13. As I stated above, I haven’t read a single thing you’ve written (including this most recent retort) since I obliterated your initial comment, then indicated to you that yes, in fact, I’d responded to your comment–sorry to break your heart. Please stop responding, Tom; given that you’ve proven that your IQ is very low, based on a) belief in God b) inability to determine who’s responding to who, it’s a waste of your time and mine (unless you can prove the existence of “God,” that is–good luck).
          Goodbye, Tom…(attempt five, if memory serves)

        14. LOL!!
          This is like a cartoon! You are responding to me over and over again, but all the while metaphorically sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, “I CAN’T HEAR YOUUUUU! I CAN’T HEAR YOUUUUU!
          I’m NOT reading your commebts!
          I’m NOT reading your comments.
          I’m not. I’m not.
          I’m not reading your comments. Why are you writing these comments when I’m not reading them? You’re stupid, Tom, because I’m not even listening to you ”
          “Stop replying to me, Tom. Stop replying. I’m not listening. I’m not listening.”
          “Why do you keep replying? I said I’m not listening. I’m not listening ”
          “LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa… LALALALALALALALALALALALA
          LALALALALALALALALALALA!!”
          “STOP REPLYING!!!!!!! Tom! I said, Stop Replying to me!!
          ” Look, Tom, I’m not playing anymore. I’m not playing. I’mnotplayinganymore’mI’mnotplayinganymore,”
          Stop it.
          Stop it!
          I said Stop It!
          WAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
          You are a lot of fun to harrass! I can’t wait to see what you say next!

    1. His manifesto appeared in full in sunday papers in ’95 without much denouncement. There it was in black and white. Windows ’95 was moving on to windows ’98 slowly. In stages web tech seemed to be maturing through adolescence. The ‘THING WAS ALIVE’ (’95 was grade school years and ’98 was middle school. For a decade, the web matured in benchmark three year segments, like a human traverses through primary/secondary school. The ‘THING’ from birth to adulthood took approx 18 to 20 years, roughly the same time for a normal human to grow from infancy to fighting age to adulthood. Advanced courses through adulthood and profession is when the human begins massively accumulating and assimilating data from experiences and the power hungry individual gets hands on skills working their way up the chain, pulling the levers of the power structures. The sumbitch IS ALIVE.

  43. This is exactly why going off grid, growing your own food, and building your own shelter is the end game for any red pill man in today’s age

  44. I say we make the system fall apart. If the people of the past were more happy with their situation than we are currently, people in the newly created world will adjust to the new way of living.

  45. Meh. TK as a reasonable intelligent academic made some good points, and also failed at times. Shocker, just like most people. Right about some things, wrong about others (and sometimes profoundly wrong).
    His version of freedom seems to be inherited from existentialism, Marx, et al. What a bore.
    You know who REALLY did not get to enjoy freedom? The cave man. He faced horrifying, death defying decisions and circumstances every day. Slept with one eye open. Lived in CONSTANT fear of death. He had to navigate through a forest full of bears and wolves that were opposed to him pursuing his interests.
    So we modern humans have to navigate through bureaucracies, governments, banks, and the rest – which mostly serve us, but YES, sometimes are opposed to our interests.
    Cry me a river.
    Learn to do navigate through life well and live.
    Otherwise, quitcherbitchin and go dig a hole in the woods and live in perfect freedom, just like they do on Naked and Afraid.

    1. “reasonable [sic] intelligent.” No. His IQ was measured at 166 (one per one million). Safe estimate: at least 40 points higher than yours (and probably more than 50). You (and I) may not agree with his statements, but by no measure are you of sufficient mind to judge someone so vastly intellectually superior to you (unless, of course, you are also a high genius). Give respect where due.

      1. That’s Ad hominem. Try ad argumentum instead. Unless you too want to be preemptively excluded from arguments with or about your ‘betters’.

      2. I stand corrected, thank you for the information, I was unaware that he measured at 166.
        But I must take issue with this statement: “but by no measure are you of sufficient mind to judge someone so vastly intellectually superior to you”
        How have you come to this determination?
        By NO measure? Really? How ’bout let’s measure the number of people we’ve murdered? Zero for me. By this measure alone I am likely already a better cog in the wheel of society.
        And my simple summation of his views still stands. Like Marx and existentialists, he puts too much emphasis on an idealized and utopian vision or definition of what freedom is or ought to be. He would have been much wiser to take a little hint from Buddha – that all life is a struggle. (I am a Christian, but nuggets of wisdom can be found everywhere). Sometimes your enemy is nature itself, vicious animals or competing tribes, or in our modern case we are troubled with more technical things.
        This struggle (so long as man lives) will always be with us, it just takes on different forms. The wise one understands the world he lives in and does his best to navigate his way through it, Difficulties are everywhere. The challenge is to rise above them. Be a better man. In fact, be a better MODERN man.
        BTW, I have invented mathematical theorems that expand on the work of Pythagoras, and are used all over the world. I’m not a high genius. I am a practical and efficient thinker, however.
        Thank you for reading, if you’ve made it this far.

        1. Have you scored above 166, SD15, on an IQ test? No? There’s your answer (didn’t read the rest of your comment). 🙂
          (You may well be more intelligent–it’s highly unlikely, given that 166 is approximately one per one million. [Accomplishments are of no relevance–we’re talking “intelligence,” not accomplishments.] [I went back and skimmed your statements.] Take the Titan test and let us know how you do.) 🙂

      3. IQ does not measure absolute intelligence. In fact, intelligence has numerous definitions. It measures your intelligence by comparing it to the population. It also tends to focus on analytic intellect instead of creative intellect and so on.

        1. “Creative intellect” generally correlates highly with “crystalized” and “fluid” intelligence, both of which are directly measured by IQ testing. (People like to use examples like Warhol as supposed counterpoints; Warhol was a moron [IQ 80-ish] whose “abstraction” earned him undeserved praise. All of the greatest composers, etc., had [or were estimated to have had] astronomical IQs.)
          On the contrary, IQ tests correlate highly with each other, and the definition of “general intelligence,” as measured by measuring a dozen independent mental faculties, is indeed commonly agreed upon (though people often like to try to argue otherwise [without sufficient evidence]).
          e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale
          p.s. basically all people who can’t score highly on IQ tests because they aren’t as intelligent as they’d like to think they are complain about IQ testing’s supposed lack of validity (just saying). (Not saying that this applies to you, but it generally applies.) An overabundance of egoism and narcissism are the problems, not IQ testing.

        2. It doesn’t account for behavioral learning though. I suppose I have a rather unique perspective on that though.

        3. …good thing we weren’t talking about “behavioral learning,” which bears no relevance here.

        4. Actually, we are. . Ted had a 166 iq. The potential he had…
          He was also seriously hampers by limited coping mechanisms and anti social behaviours. He also felt invalidated and unheard.
          His iq score seems to imply that he could do anything. Behavioral lessening and his poor coping skills seriously lowered that possibility. In facT other than writng the manifesto,which most people will never read because of they’re opinions on the bombings. All that possibility..

        5. “He was also seriously hampers by limited coping mechanisms and anti social behaviours”
          I’ll assume that you witnessed this; else, not sure how you’d know (I can also make assumptions, of course).
          His IQ is one per one million. If you have evidence that his EQ was and is inordinately low (below average, as you’ve clearly implied) please provide it. (Be aware that EQ and IQ positively, not negatively, correlate.)
          (Incidentally, the stereotype of highly intelligent people as “socially inept” is utter nonsense. The higher the IQ, the higher the ability to “socialize” [adapt]. As someone with an extremely outlying IQ, I can tell you that it’s a matter of lack of interest in “socializing”–not inability.) (“Socializing” with people of average intellect is painfully boring/irritating, so we [extreme outliers] tend to avoid it, whenever possible.) (This is why high-IQ societies exist.) (Granted, we won’t all end up living in the woods without electricity/plumbing, but it’s impossible for any ordinary or even intelligent man to understand the inner workings of a mind so rare as his [and what, precisely, that means].)

        6. I disagree. Public education is its current no child left behind format creates a difficult atmosphere for above average children to socialize in especially when they are notably above average. Psychologists have a saying, there is a fine line between challenged and gifted… Anyway, I think his manifesto, word choice, secluded lifestyle, and his crimes are all illustrative of a person lacking many social skills. How is living alone on the woods, writing extensive manifestos to be read by only those you’ve never met, and sending bombs in the mail knowing full well that they’re just as likely as not to harm your target victim as strangers. That tells me it didn’t really matter who the actual recipient was.

  46. Roosh
    Move to the Rockies or Inland Pacific NW and join a patriot survival militia group. In that setting you get liberty, self reliance, and are in a position to stand up to the system more than people in cities ever could be capable of.

  47. “In the future, social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human being will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system.”
    This is one of the main goals of Common Core. Producing compliant, consensus-seeking, non-individualist proles.

  48. “There is good reason to believe that primitive man suffered from less
    stress and frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life
    than modern man is.”
    Massively wrong statement. Primitive man’s existence was one of constantly being bullied or being the bully. They were bullied by their liege lords, by their religious bodies and most severely by any 2 or 3 rogues that pitched up at their place of residence to rape and pillage at will.
    The industrial revolution ended this with the introduction of Samuel Colts .45, known affectionately as the Equalizer, because as the saying goes, god made all men, but Samuel Colt made them all equal.
    It is no surprise then that leftist bully’s always want firearms removed from the general population so that they can return us to the primitive existence of being at the mercy of the bullies.

  49. (Aside: Expect this to appear soon at WeHumpedTheMammoth.. “Lookie, proof that Roosh and all mennists are supporting known terrorists now!!!…. *ding* hang on my stuffed crust is ready ON-NOM-NOM”)
    Anyway, interesting thesis. But my main criticism is Kaczynski’s overuse of the “noble savage” trope. Since the early Paleolithic man has engaged in “surrogate activities”, like art, story telling, and religious rituals. It’s only their complexity that has increased in the modern age, not their existence. Same with technology.. it has been an inexorable one-way march from the Oldowan to the present, and beyond. Indeed, European Colonialism was only half about dominating more primitive cultures.. the other half was about the indigenous cultures embracing the fantastic technologies the Europeans brought. Especially superior weaponry like guns, as it allowed one tribe to establish complete Power (with a capital P) over its neighbors, which hitherto it could not accomplish with spears alone.
    So I don’t subscribe to this hypothesis that regressing to a more “primitive” state will somehow make humanity “better”. It simply goes against human nature, and besides, how long before someone starts mixing sulfur and saltpeter again. Indeed, it smacks of the “Matriarchal Europe” hypothesis of Gimbutas and co, which posited this magical “beforetime” where everyone was happy and peaceful and sat around singing Kum-ba-ya all day. (Except of course, in Gimbutas’ hypothesis Paleolithic Europe was inhabited by peaceful matriarchal cultures, until the evil patriarchal Kurgans muscled in.)
    It is part of Man’s nature to have power over all he sees, both fellow man and nature alike.. and in that capacity, technology is a slave to Man’s nature, not the other way round. That said, absolutely the Elite will abuse technology keep the peasants in line.

  50. “Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.”
    http://newsok.com/article/5453690
    The recent female Army Ranger buzz in the media smells like complete $h!#! If they are equal to men then make them fu#king sign up for the draft when they turn 18. The people coming back in body bags are named Bob, Carl, Pedro, Bubba and Leroy not Stacy, Ann, Jenny, and Betsy.

  51. They (licensed psychiatrist[s]) also (apparently intentionally) mislabeled him a “paranoid schizophrenic,” at one point. This was found to be absurd, of course, evidenced by the fact that his manifesto (as you’ve stated) is free of (almost exclusively) both paranoia and delusion. He knew exactly what he was doing, and his thoughts and thought processes (“right” or “wrong”) were clear.
    For those who don’t know, the man was a high genius (IQ 166; approximately one per one million). (Even more intelligent than Roosh.) (And Einstein.) In short, this means that he was/remains inherent of cognition at a level of depth and clarity that even a “reasonably intelligent” man can’t even begin to fathom (thus, it’s no coincidence that his expressions differed/differ so substantially from common thought [rather, lack thereof]). Additionally, I certainly don’t advocate murder/assault, but had he not taken the actions he did, it’s highly unlikely (due not to lack of credibility, but exposure) that neither Roosh nor anyone else would be discussing his writings. (Just stating the obvious.) Though I don’t agree with his ultimate conclusion (or its extremity), there is much truth within his writings (with a bit of embellishment/exaggeration, here and there), and to call him “crazy” is simply excusatory, dismissive, and outright ignorant.

    1. Paranoid schizophrenia is only one of many forms of schizophrenia, and it cycles. Also, schizophrenics tend to be on the average to bright spectrum. It is also one of three diagnosis guaranteed to be met with harsh consequences and serve as an excuse to explain the behavior to a fearful public. kaczynskis’ seems to suffer from asperger’s which is common is extremely intelligent people due to their struggle to socialize with kids their own age.

      1. Heh-who’s to say? Point was, they intentionally mislabeled him for the sake of convenience (it’s much harder to explain his writings as sane and logical).

        1. It was deliberate. There’s so much fabricated nonsense about schizophrenia that merely mentioning it discourages the general public from looking any further into that person’s intentions or motivations.
          I don’t believe he was insane, but serious flaws exist between his carefully written manifesto and his actions.

        2. He may well have become delusional or grandiose, but indeed, his writings are nearly entirely clear of logical error.

        3. I wouldn’t say grandiose. Logical people tend to be better at compartmentalizing, but I think Ted moved beyond that. It almost seems like he’s standing just outside of society…

  52. Despite his Mensa level IQ he was pretty poor at properly identifying his targets. His last victim was president of the California Forestry Association – a trade group that (at the time) was fighting a vicious battle against the watermelon marxists ( environmentalists) over property rights and regulations. If there ever was a group more against Leftists and oppressive government -I can’t think of one. Ive worked in the timber industry my whole life and I can’t think of any sector of our rapidly disappearing economy that is more free market, independent, freedom loving and non PC. Its why the limp wrists in DC continue to fight a never ending battle against it.

  53. Thomas Jefferson always argued that a Constitutional Republic would not survive unless we as a society remained largely agrarian. His insights were prophetic.

  54. I consider myself fairly open minded, but even let’s not ignore that viewing Kaczynski’s manifesto as a study of human behavior is a bit like allowing Bundy to counsel victimized young girls. Regardless of his intellect, and possibly because of it, Kaczynskis’ anti social tendencies and extremely logical mindset, he was limited in his experience with the human condition. It is also unusual to argue that the ideas of the Left limit individual rights. They tend to frown instead on democracy and a majority rule. kaczynskis’s view of marginalized groups doesn’t seem to account the element of scapegoating which is a key factor in Western political psychology and propaganda.However, I do agree the political correctness has become stifling, and feminism. Sylvia Plath is a good example. Feminist turned her into a martyr posthumously, but they seem to think they have to victimize everyone in order to make them seem like a strong voice for their movement. It’s ridiculous.
    Yet, for all of kaczynskis’ talk about power and control, bombs at a distance with unreliable results, is neither. It’s cowardly and dependent on hysteria. It is not established by a show of force.
    As a society, we are steadily sacrificing rights under the illusion of security, and it’s true that the the concept of rights has far outgrown the Bill of Rights. Even the Founding Fathers understood that nothing as limited as a contract could secure something as broad as the rights of the people. However, there is freedom, and there is anarchy, and the argument for one while practicing the other is simply unstable.

  55. This is an incredible topic. I do not have the personalized or even general hostility TK had. But I am disturbed by trends in tech, the left and modern culture. My dream is to live off the grid. After I retire, I probably will live 19th century style. At least as much as possible.

  56. The elite don’t want to exterminate the masses. They want to have as many people as possible. It is to their benefit to gave more rather than less people. That is why there is more people than last year, and more people than 40 years ago, when programs for natality control began en masse. But such programs are not intended to control population growth, instead they are to make money to the promoters of the program. The unabomber is wrong about mechanization. Look at China’s factories, they are not manned by robots, but by human beings. It is cheaper to pay $100 per month to a modern slave than to buy the robots and pay for their maintenance.

  57. This world is a dark place, full of lies and deceit. It is about selfishness, money, sex and power. Even happy sounding New Age ideas are deceitful. Such ideas make you believe you are a ‘god’, that you can have anything you want: happiness, health and wealth. And whilst their “feel good” practices do bring about such things, pay attention to what they are really about: promoting selfishness. Examples of New Age ideas include ‘The Secret’, spiritual channeling, oriental meditation, yoga philosophy, hinduist chakras, amithaba budism, tarot reading, among others. The only escape out of this world is Jesus. He is the only Savior. Please read the New Testament.

  58. Kaczynski was one of the greatest minds we’ve ever had, 20 years later he wouldn’t have to rework his manifesto much. Makes more sense in 2015 than it did in 1995. Truly a visionary.
    But yeah violence isn’t effective when you’re one guy vs. the system. Change happens through coercion, it wasn’t as futile as he made it out to be. That isolation helped him step back and analyze the world, but it also reduced his confidence in being able to negotiate with the world around him.

  59. he’s right and wrong at the same time.
    the technological progress he observed was only serving a centralization of power.
    so he confused technological centralization with technological progress.
    tech like bitcoin does the opposite. it is so utterly decentralized that it eliminates any third party.
    it can replace a financial industry that takes up 40% GDP.
    it makes the fiat money that takes control over your assets and hands them to the banks that hold your money, to your own hands.
    you control your money. no one else. no third party.
    technology like this unfortunately only comes once every few decades because research is only paid for tech that does exactly what the unabomber predicted.
    only very few ‘radicals’ like Saotshi Nakamoto are willing to break free from that.

  60. Interesting reading. However I would disagree on two major issues.
    Firstly, Kaczynski’s insights about the Left already appear outdated. Leftists do not want to destroy competition. They want to win it. Equality is a mere mask, just as any metapolitical device they use to usher their narrative. Today they want to project an image of success, while also using the victim card to get the moral high ground. Typical example: Emma Watson or Jessica Lelièvre, privileged and wealthy dad’s daughters, playing the victim card without denying at all their privilege. The Left does not hate everything that is positive, the Left hates the Aryan people and does everything possible to crush it, ethnically and culturally.
    Secondly, Kaczynski idealizes the “primitive man”, an orientation I would see as a false road. There is nothing ideal in having to survive day by day, in having one’s basic needs always at stake. There is nothing ideal in the endless petty rivalries of little groups. Kaczynski’s idealized life is at best mediocre. I would rather believe in cosmos with someone like Dugin than idealize the primitive and mediocre. Fortunately, exclusive naturalism is coming to an end and we are rediscovering, not only petty freedom and our oppressed nature, but also the transcendent. If only Kaczynski had read Evola, his critique would nail it much better.

  61. Problem: Knowledge is difficult to destroy.
    We know how to do science. We know a technological civilization is possible. A civilization with science can easily dominate one without it. Good luck suppressing all knowledge of advanced tech and the benefits of it in every corner of the world. Better luck still doing it without tech or a world spanning empire. You have to not only dismantle industry but somehow erase all knowledge that it ever existed and keep it erased in the presence of billions of physical examples and billions of people who will be quietly teaching their children so that they can reap the advantages, even if done on the downlow.
    The genie is out of the bottle, we learn to live with it or we go extinct, there is no other option. No Noble Savage Edgar Rich Burroughs fantasy. This knowledge problem was clearly understood a long time before a nutter started mailing bombs, it is right there in the Garden of Eden in the form of the Tree of Knowledge.

  62. Really enjoyed all of this Roosh. Also hat-tip for editing relevance / choice of quotes.
    I’d never heard of Kaczynski before this, but his ideas seem to “triangulate” (as you called it) with our own. One thing re: technology, and you’ve no doubt sussed this already, but it’s worth noting; we’d all be sipping at some feminist cunt-ideology right now were it not for the internet.
    But the guy’s spot on with what he says about control and technology and how we’re highly highly specialized machines (the implication being that we’re so specialized that our skills can become redundant at any moment and we therefore must constantly be up-skilling. Which is a form of un-freedom, if not control.
    But yeah, very tangible control systems are to be found in the Panopticon: facebook, twitter etc. I’m glad Twitter’s stock is currently crumbling. Facebook won’t be too far off i sense. And we’re getting to the point where the manosphere is becoming so influential that a mass dropping-out campaign could plausibly speed up the decline of monopolized social networks and their associated control-through-surveillance.
    anyways tired, must sleep, great work again 🙂

  63. Lol, what most people liking discussing are the symptoms of a system because that is where their knowledge ends and what most people understand. However, for those of us with superintelligence, the playing field is extensive and where things get interesting. We’re headed towards a Global Brain where political philosophy will be pretty much irrelevant. Kaczynski’s manifesto is the end result of a man of only moderate intelligence (160IQ) and no REAL imagination. He really didn’t stand much of a chance envisioning something new in any detail. There is no good reason to believe that the emergence technology in the last 50 years is the end state of human society. Indeed, we see that everyday with new innovations and reduce need for humans. While evolution might take millions of years to generate another sea change as dramatic as the emergence of modern humanity, technology may do the job much more expediently. The point is that the way we experience the world, the way we human animals live life and conduct social affairs, is not the end state of mind-in-the-universe, but only an intermediate state on the way to something else.
    What is a Global Brain? The Global Brain is a leading hypothesis explaining the current evolution of the human system. Recent multidisciplinary research at the Global Brain Institute has laid a potential framework for thinking about the future of human society within the context of the emergence of a global brain this century. A global-brain-dominated society could potentially be a human utopia. Careful development of technology aimed at making human life easier – cheap power and food, effective medical care, and so forth – could enable the complete rearrangement of human society. Perhaps Earth could be covered by a set of small city-states, each one populated by like-minded individuals, living in a style of their choice. Liberated from economic need, and protected by the Steward from assault by nature or other humans, the humans under the Steward’s watch could live far more happily than in any prior human society. Free will, within the restrictions imposed by the Steward, could be refined and exercised copiously, perhaps in the manner of Buddhist “mind control.” And growth could occur spectacularly in non-dangerous directions, such as philosophy, music and art.

    1. 160 IQ is in the top 0.1% of human intelligence and is at the genius level. People start winning Nobel prizes (outside of the worthless peace category) at that level. In fact people with lower IQs have won it in physics. It’s funny to see someone refer to this as “moderate intelligence.” You yourself are likely of inferior intelligence to the person you deem “moderately intelligent.”
      Lots of people in “the elite” do not even have this level of intelligence, they have money/power because their ancestors were successful in some way (profitable crimes, monopolised emerging industry at the time of its original inception etc) and they simply inherit the management of such power structures.
      The global brain idea sounds interesting, but it sounds more optimistically speculative than it does plausible (the method of implementation is amiss.)

      1. Blah, my IQ is 180 and I’m pretty much the most intelligent mind on Earth… One of the people you refer to as “the elite”. IQ doesn’t really mean anything without the right training. Kaczynski training was that a technocrat. So his imagination was never developed. He was practically retarded (like most people here). Seriously, sending bombs in the mail and going on about an intermediate state in human society for 30 years? Dude was a STRAIGHT up retard. It’s like some guy losing his job at Taco Bell and then shooting people because he doesn’t see a future for himself lol. Yeah, let’s go back to the Stone Age and eat maggoty bread because the future is so scary:
        http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-global-brain-and-the-future-information-society

  64. As a black man who has submitted to the ways of a white man, I can’t complain since it all boils down to choice. We had our ways and the white man sold his way to us and we accepted. The same applies to other cultures looking up to the West to show them how to live and adapt in this current wave of Western civilization that has swept out all indigenous lifestyles of the world.
    Yes, the modern life is unsustainable and is becoming more dangerous now that even young Africans in the rural areas are obsessed with owning a Ferrari and know what it means to be cool. The Hollywood is penetrating all parts of the world leaving no stones unturned. Now this is when it gets suspicious, If the white elites and the drivers of the global economy knows that this over-consumptive lifestyle is unsustainable, why do they promote it? Why don’t they encourage young people to remain in the villages to grow their own food instead of moving to polluted steel industries to participate in global destruction?
    I presume that probably there is a plan to milk everything out of the inferior cultures and when the climax is reached,We will be exterminated. we are birthing at very high rates and many of our aggressive young are a danger to the white child. The white man wont be in slumber now that their population is dwindling to watch another race take over control. They are the masters of Machievellian moves, I believe sooner or later, we will be gone. The Hollywood movies are already predicting this, it’s very unfortunate how many of us are in a slumber waiting for our impending demise. In the meantime I will game and make a few babies before eating the gas with them.

  65. The Unabomber, despite his annoyance with leftism, did not seem to play political favorites. He did not as you say “kill three of them” referring to leftists. Of his three victims were a timber industry lobbyist, PR rep for Exxon and a guy that owned a computer store that he had a beef with; none particularly leftist. He also tried to blow up a plane and several academics from both sides of the political fence.
    He seems to be a technophobic neo-luddite and environmentalist anarchist and very apolitical.
    His observations about the psychological motives of leftists are spot on however.

  66. Well… he was spot on the problems technological advancement will cause… but his “solution” was as totalitarian and inhuman as the globalist agenda that is forced upon our throats everyday. Seriously.. without technology 7 billion people cannot support themselves on the planet. I am not a fan of population controll policies….only a regime like Chine may implement them.. and the china regime isnt enviable. Perhaps we will find a solution in technology to make us “happy”…. Colonize other planets… live in virtual reallity “woods” as he did, Perhaps decentralised transactions the bitcoin promisies might give some of our lost freedom back… The solution is to sponsor research to those ends. Not to deny techology itself. That is suicidial.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *