lol. taking questions about the manifesto i guess. what a bummer. i feel like an idiot

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864630&forum_id=2,#49872118)

fucked up. the computers are working against me. really makes you think

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864630&forum_id=2,#49872125)

gonna go engage in some surrogate activities. let me know your Thoughts on this topic if you have any you'd like to share

https://x.com/GoySuperstar/status/2052425994397774283

Re-read Kaczynski's Unabomber Manifesto. It holds up really well. Not just the commentary on technology, but also the stuff about leftism (probably the best part of the essay - the greatest-ever takedown of shitlibbery imo), the power process, surrogate activities. Still a must-read for any 21st century intellectual

His only real miss imo was envisioning an anti-technology revolution to be a mass movement. Mass movements have always been about the immediate self-interests of its participants. But the destruction of technological society would involve billions of deaths and immense human suffering. It could never be a mass movement - why would the masses ever support this?

Any destruction of technological society would have to be carried out by a small, genuinely fanatical minority elite. The question remains: why would such a minority elite choose to destroy the world, rather than rule it for their own benefit? But it's at least an answerable question: (because they would be genuine fanatics). There have been historical instances of small groups of genuine fanatics acting contrary to their self-interest due to ideological belief. But this has (ofc) never occurred at a mass scale

"Only a God can save us" remains true. Any humans who could accomplish the above - and would be willing to do so - would be gods compared to the rest of us today

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864630&forum_id=2,#49872164)

I think you MIGHT be wrong about whether an anti-technology revolution could get mass buy-in. I consume a lot of leftist media (while Uncle Ted uses "leftist" to mean "liberal," the media I consume is very anti-shitlib, anti-identity-politics, solely focused on returning power to the people) with a handful of populist right-wing pundits sprinkled in. And everyone I watch is categorically opposed to the AI explosion, massive increase in data centers, surveillance state, etc. PLUS they report on how negative people's views of these things are across the political spectrum. No one wants a data center anywhere near them, and that's gonna bring more and more people to the anti-technology side as more and more get built around the world. Everyone hates Palantir, and I'm guessing that awareness and opposition to the surveillance state has steadily increased since the Patriot Act and all that, BUT correct me if I'm wrong and people are actually acclimating to it. Since I know people are sometimes frogs in boiling water when it comes to society's progression toward dystopia.

Of course there's a gap between "I don't want mass unemployment and a world covered in data centers collecting my every movement" and "the Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster." But it might be closer than you think. Even normies are saying shit like "let's start over from before the internet" as I covered ITT: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5863784&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864630&forum_id=2,#49873129)

normies oppose AI in particular because they (correctly) understand it to be directly detrimental to their self-interest. but they would never be willing to reject *all* technology, because they (correctly) understand themselves to greatly benefit from it

kaczynski addresses this point in the essay, and explains that you have to actually destroy all technology - you can't just try to snipe individual applications of it. even if you manage to delay or hamstring some application of technology, you'll never be able to stop it entirely; it will always inevitably come into being

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864630&forum_id=2,#49873246)

i actually did read part of it back in the day

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864630&forum_id=2,#49873158)

It also explains why there is so much "anxiety" and depression in people who are decently well-off. Whereas people who actually have to work for a living (doing actual work, not make-work) have difficulties, but not the same mental manias.

His stuff on leftism is also incredible.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864630&forum_id=2,#49873231)

Just at a gut level, who is more likely to be on this shit:

Person A - prole goy welder who makes $75k a year and works on job sites

Person B - college grad female who works in Customer Success at a SaaS Company selling financial regulation compliance solutions

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864630&forum_id=2,#49873304)

people always tout religiosity as The Answer to the nihilism of modernity, but....no one is actually religious. no one believes in god. no one believes in the afterlife

it's just not real. i'm not making a normative judgment. it's just a fact that religion no longer exists. "religiosity" is merely a proxy for having a localized community/family/sense of belonging/purpose

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864630&forum_id=2,#49873344)

There is no meaning to an atheists life (I'm an atheist). All this nonsense "philosophy" is really just dancing around the simple fact that religion gave people purpose, meaning, and structure. And within the span of a couple generations we mostly vaporized it. That is at the root of society's current ills and there's no easy way to solve it. But by all means continue jerking yourself off without admitting the root cause, constructing "feels right to me" towers of philosophical babel trying to replace God

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864630&forum_id=2,#49873347)

i don't agree with kaczyski that industrial, mass society was where "we" went wrong, either. the problems we have today can be traced back much further in time than that. this destination was always inevitable once we set down the path that we've been on. the death of supernatural religion was always inevitable, too

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864630&forum_id=2,#49873369)

I think you are saying that basically people feel empty and hollow because they no longer have to do physical labor to survive and so they fill the void through any number of surrogate activities. And that religious people avoid this to some extent because of their beliefs. aka they heard The Good News (unironically saying this, btw.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864630&forum_id=2,#49873367)

To the extent humans in modern society are more anxious/depressed than e.g. we were a hundred years ago, It's the Lack of Religion, Stupid. Within the context of modern human society it is perfectly reasonable to think that when we suddenly rip out the foundation of human belief systems for the last several thousand years people feel lost and aimless. Working the land vs being an accountant or whatever is going to change jack shit if at the end of the day you're a stone cold atheist. Meaningless is meaningless.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5864630&forum_id=2,#49873388)