For obvious reasons, a white-supremacist movement cannot be worldwide. Even if a movement does not claim superiority for any one race or culture, but merely insists on keeping the world’s various races or cultures separate and distinct, it will not be able to bring technology under control, because its separatist attitude will inevitably promote rivalry and/or suspicion among the various races or ethnic groups. Each race or ethnic group, for the sake of its own security, will try to make sure that it has more power — and therefore more technology — than other races or ethnic groups. It follows that any movement that seeks to limit technology must make every effort to minimize divisions or differences among races or ethnic groups.[3] Purely as a matter of strategy, racial and cultural blending must be promoted.

The ecofascists need to read ISAIF, Technological Slavery, and Anti-Tech Revolution CAREFULLY. Doing so will not change their beliefs — which are based solely on emotion, not on reason — but at least it may prevent them from calling me an “inspiration” and citing my works in support of their ideology. It should show them that I am their adversary.

The ecofascists’ fixation on race puts them in the same family with the leftists, who likewise are fixated on race. The difference between the two is only that to the ecofascists the “white” race is the hero of the story, whereas the ordinary left makes the same race into the villain. The ecofascists and the ordinary leftists are only two sides of the same (counterfeit) coin.

Ted Kaczynski

September 29, 2020

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5142921&forum_id=2#44768395)

At least the 2nd gen ones that I grew up with are all chill bros

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5142921&forum_id=2#44774563)

i actually see the point he's making but i don't agree that it's worth it to "get the tribes together" even if you settle differences later, nor do i think it's possible. i also don't like the word "blending"....it would be a temporary alliance at most.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5142921&forum_id=2#44768445)

ted is always right.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5142921&forum_id=2#44769910)

he's absolutely right. even if you are a legit white supremacist, if you subscribe to ted's view that the leftists and technological slavery is the biggest problem we face, than *purely as a matter of strategy* the movement against them has to be inclusive, because it needs as many people as possible, and because any group that exposes racial superiority views is going to be looked at with extreme skepticism.

he's also saying that they're two sides of the same coin: both with an extreme focus on identity. it doesn't matter what the identity of these people are, it's about what they believe and what they're doing. it's completely identity neutral.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5142921&forum_id=2#44771940)

this is some reddit level thinking

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5142921&forum_id=2#44771975)

Anything he said that seemed extreme or urgent was rhetorical.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5142921&forum_id=2#44772019)

People aren't going to go live in the woods overnight, it's a gradual process. It might not happen at all, or it might not happen all the way or for all of the human population. But I think you are confusing rhetoric with actual intent/strategy. Don't misread Uncle Ted the same way you accuse him of misreading human nature.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5142921&forum_id=2#44772075)

Meanwhile computer tech is advancing full steam ahead in every online sector. New smartphones for everyone every 6 months. There's no sign people are going off the grid at all. If smartphone sales are down it's because the market is already approaching total saturation. People tired of Facebook just move on to TikTok or whatever.

It's also a false dichotomy to say someone eschewing a smartphone because it makes them anxious also means they will go live in the woods or give up modern medicine or transportation. They will just pursue different kinds of technology to make their lives easier.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5142921&forum_id=2#44772125)

Emerging social trends aren't that amenable to concrete empiricism. If they were, anyone could predict the future. I'm not going to pull up stats about how the "Industrial Society and it's Future" PDF has been downloaded 1000% more per year since 2010 or something. And this isn't just "'people' online", it's an aggregation of experience I've had. I'm not saying intuition is a valid argument, but it is often correct. It's useless to engage here because I think things will go one way, you don't. Not really any way to know the future.

"It's also a false dichotomy to say someone eschewing a smartphone because it makes them anxious also means they will go live in the woods or give up modern medicine or transportation. They will just pursue different kinds of technology to make their lives easier."

Again, straw man. I said people are becoming more fed up with certain technologies, and this trend is progressing. It might encompass more and more technologies...I think it will. Never said that they'll drop their phones and move to the woods of Montana on a dime.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5142921&forum_id=2#44772155)

His use of technology was pretty limited once he had been settled in.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5142921&forum_id=2#44772084)

technology is based. fuck dying at age 30. fuck slaving away for scraps. fuck getting a small cut and then literally dying from "infection." technology is responsible for virtually all of what makes man, man

technology brings man closer to god

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5142921&forum_id=2#44772104)

Idk why we'd have to give up antibiotics, for example. I think there is a solution to modernity that brings us closer to our ancestral roots without bringing back all the hardship.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5142921&forum_id=2#44772128)

we have outsourced control of our world and societies to technology itself. it might seem like "the libs" or "the jews" or whoever is "in charge" of things, but actually even those people are not in charge at all. The Machine runs on its own. mercilessly chewing up and spitting out human capital and human lives to serve its own ends and its own infinite growth

our "leaders" and "elites" don't even pretend like they're in charge anymore. they outsource everything to "the science" and "the technocrats" and "the markets." adam curtis has some good documentaries about this

all we need to do is to re-assert control of the levers of power and give the reins to MAN. you could make some random 90 IQ redneck absolute dictator of the US right now and within a year he would have already solved many of our most pressing issues. technology is a TOOL that should SERVE us, not an end in and of itself, and CERTAINLY NOT a force that should be placed ABOVE humans in terms of reverence and deference

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5142921&forum_id=2#44772157)

this is a forgery!!!!!

psyops!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5142921&forum_id=2#44771983)

this is the same logic you see from "conservative" and "moderate" boomers: that yeah racial differences are real, but since we can't do anything about them, it is best to pretend that they're not real and promote race-mixing in order to prevent racial conflict

it's the same logic still being given to suppress scientific study of race and racial differences. people in academia openly spout this line. guys like david reich will write an entire anthology about how genetic differences between races are real, then sum it all up with "but we shouldn't talk about this stuff, because it will just create racial conflict." yeah ok buddy. you know what actually creates racial conflict? niggers

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5142921&forum_id=2#44772070)

In any case, it's selection pressure that drives evolution, not the other way around. If whites have certain genetic traits that confer a survival advantage, nature will continue to select for those traits. What ultimately matters is whether we have enough people with those traits, not whether the people who have those traits are white or some weird melange.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5142921&forum_id=2#44772956)