Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

So, recently I have been forcing my self to read various things in the general categories dealing with race. I thought Ted Kazinskys manifesto might be interesting so I downloaded the audiobook version online.

Verdict: Mostly bullshit written by an individual that has high IQ in abstract symbolic thinking with an obsessive compulsive disorder that doesn't allow him to understand the world outside of the abstract symbolic psychological cage that he has built for him self.

Ted clearly has ABSOLUTELY ZERO experience in life, zero experience in organizing groups of humans, zero experience in running organizations and zero understanding of human and animal psychology. I have met people like this. They are usually mathematicians or programmers, are hugely productive in their specializations and can concentrate for long periods of time. But, they have no capacity to think outside of their rigidly defined framework of how they believe the universe works. You can't ever get them to concede that they could be wrong.

What he does get right, and correctly predicts as a problem that we will have to deal with in the future (from the perspective of the time when the manifesto was written) is leftism. Although his description of the psychological profiles of leftists are a little too high level, I think he might have provided a reasonable way categorize and think about what is a leftist, how their mind works and what drives them.

What he really gets wrong is the whole thrust of the manifesto: technology has destroyed everything and is the cause of all misery. This is where his obsessive compulsive disorder really shows up. He spends all of his time trying to make the case that technology has destroyed everything and that in order to be saved we must return to ... something nature something. Basically a ludicrously childish set of insights, incomprehensibly retarded analysis and a conclusion that is so vague there is no conclusion beyond we must return to nature.

I know he was experimented on by the government when he was young, but, this guy was broken at birth. In ancient times he would have been killed because he would not be able to provide for the tribe, today these types are useful in expanding fields of specialty that require a lifetime of dedication to move forward.

Overall:

1) Reasonable points made in the first 30 minutes or so.

2) The whole middle is nonsense by someone that has no clue about anything at all.

3) In the last hour or so he doubles back a bit and makes a few reasonable points.

4) The last part is absolute garbage.

VERDICT: The description of leftists might be useful because it summarizes their psychological profile better than most people that I have seen online. Other than that, the manifesto is useless nonsense.

FINAL THOUGHTS: I am forcing my self to read through a bunch of the stuff people link to or keep on bringing up like this manifesto. So far, honestly, most of it is utter garbage. For sure, all of it has some minimal value in either gathering up historical facts that have been deliberately ignored or obfuscated or perhaps even offer a marginal set of insights that MIGHT be considered useful. Overall, virtually nothing that I have read provides any useful information.

Next I will try to get therough the New Zeland manifesto. I agree with those that say that there is something odd about the massacre. I watched it, it did NOT look like people died, especially when he enters that one room with all the bodies in the corner and he fires a couple of shots at them and walks out. I have no proof (seen a few critiques online) but it doesn't read right. Let's see what this manifesto is all about.

So, recently I have been forcing my self to read various things in the general categories dealing with race. I thought Ted Kazinskys manifesto might be interesting so I downloaded the audiobook version online. Verdict: Mostly bullshit written by an individual that has high IQ in abstract symbolic thinking with an obsessive compulsive disorder that doesn't allow him to understand the world outside of the abstract symbolic psychological cage that he has built for him self. Ted clearly has ABSOLUTELY ZERO experience in life, zero experience in organizing groups of humans, zero experience in running organizations and zero understanding of human and animal psychology. I have met people like this. They are usually mathematicians or programmers, are hugely productive in their specializations and can concentrate for long periods of time. But, they have no capacity to think outside of their rigidly defined framework of how they believe the universe works. You can't ever get them to concede that they could be wrong. What he does get right, and correctly predicts as a problem that we will have to deal with in the future (from the perspective of the time when the manifesto was written) is leftism. Although his description of the psychological profiles of leftists are a little too high level, I think he might have provided a reasonable way categorize and think about what is a leftist, how their mind works and what drives them. What he really gets wrong is the whole thrust of the manifesto: technology has destroyed everything and is the cause of all misery. This is where his obsessive compulsive disorder really shows up. He spends all of his time trying to make the case that technology has destroyed everything and that in order to be saved we must return to ... something nature something. Basically a ludicrously childish set of insights, incomprehensibly retarded analysis and a conclusion that is so vague there is no conclusion beyond we must return to nature. I know he was experimented on by the government when he was young, but, this guy was broken at birth. In ancient times he would have been killed because he would not be able to provide for the tribe, today these types are useful in expanding fields of specialty that require a lifetime of dedication to move forward. Overall: 1) Reasonable points made in the first 30 minutes or so. 2) The whole middle is nonsense by someone that has no clue about anything at all. 3) In the last hour or so he doubles back a bit and makes a few reasonable points. 4) The last part is absolute garbage. VERDICT: The description of leftists might be useful because it summarizes their psychological profile better than most people that I have seen online. Other than that, the manifesto is useless nonsense. FINAL THOUGHTS: I am forcing my self to read through a bunch of the stuff people link to or keep on bringing up like this manifesto. So far, honestly, most of it is utter garbage. For sure, all of it has some minimal value in either gathering up historical facts that have been deliberately ignored or obfuscated or perhaps even offer a marginal set of insights that MIGHT be considered useful. Overall, virtually nothing that I have read provides any useful information. Next I will try to get therough the New Zeland manifesto. I agree with those that say that there is something odd about the massacre. I watched it, it did NOT look like people died, especially when he enters that one room with all the bodies in the corner and he fires a couple of shots at them and walks out. I have no proof (seen a few critiques online) but it doesn't read right. Let's see what this manifesto is all about.

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

I largely agree with what you've written however a few things to consider.

1) Keep in mind his manifesto was written decades ago when finding and collaboration with like-minded folks was particularly difficult if you had even marginally outside-the-mainstream views.

2) We've had decades of collaborative development around the core ideas he was trying to communicate.

3) He was very likely psychologically scarred from being part of MKUltra.

[–] • 2 pts

As with pretty much every idea, one must be able to parse the useful from the useless, the relevant from the irrelevant.

Uncle Ted was correct regarding the leftists and how they think. He was incorrect in that technology is the source of all our problems. Technology is merely a tool, good in some ways and bad in others. It's always the people behind the technology that decide how technology will be used.

[–] • 1 pt

Tarrant's masacre always looked legit to me but I saw a video that shows the magazine he picks up after being tackled was already on the floor when he first entered the building. It could be a really consistent video artifact, i have an original video if the attack I saved the day of and have been avoiding checking it, I really should though...

I've never committed an action as these men have nor do I encourage it but some of my writings may have inspired at least one such incident, be it a false flag or not, the crusius Wal-Mart shooting, about a quarter to a third of that manifesto is directly plagiarized from my writings about automation worker displacement and a couple of other predictions.

I haven't penned a formal and ordered manifesto but if you want to skim the short hand schizo post versions I've written for poal comments dredge through my comments.

The jist if it is remove jews, set up ethnocentric migration and begin sending non citizens nonwhites home, offer nogs reparations if they give up citizenship and move to africa, outlaw islam, judaism and attempt to reform christianity or start a new reformed sect to be more masculine. Segregate schools by sex and race, various other school reforms allowing white students to graduate work ready with the equivalent of a 4 year degree and apprenticeship by 20 with an A and B plan and years of experience, enforce adultery laws, make producing pornography for distribution a crime though not distribution itself or possession, expand privacy laws, defeating pornography as concept will never happen but making it an industry you can't succeed in should solve most of the problems, willing to revise these measures to catch blackmarket pornographers or wage propaganda warfare. Home and family life reforms designed to have women married. Early and done reproducing before 28 the goal is that evwn if a woman wanted 8 kids she could do it by that age with a 9 month break between each pregnancy if she started at 16 and was there for married before that. By 38 the woman's youngest would be 10 and she could get a solid 22 years working professionally without much worry over her children. The primary focus of my writings is a stable and sustainable societal foundation that resists corruption and decay which penetrates all civilizations. Tax automation out the ass to pay down debt pay for healthcare, end all entitlement programs and just do a basic income, without massive administrative complexes the costs for healthcare and government entitlements go down. I go into more details and maths occasionally but the figures work and the debt does get paid down so long as we push nigs out. The last leg of my writings focuses on genetic engineering, consequences, pitfalls and its necessity and uses. Essentially if we control enough share of global media we can make the world white using genetic engineering and we solve our remaining hispanic, middle eastern, and indian problems in the west by forcing them to engineer their children to be white for national unity and greater achievement we could leave the great majority if their children's genes alone just take their caucasian ancestors genes to the top of the expression remove non white genes in competition with white genes and voila you've got spanish and portuguese looking spics, middle easterners that look like the whites living in the region thousands of years ago and the south european slaves their ancestors raped, and indians that look like the fair skinned caucasian indians that were once much more common in north india. The next generation will be allowed to engineer their children to be whiter and have the best genes on offer, we make whiteness package deal internationally, if you want white features you must take white neurogenetics too and so as japan and korea start making anime girls reality they also end up with white minds. The highest peaks of human intellect are exclusively white and so to receive them the child must be engineered white.

I skimmed it all like I said but I give basis and method in my long form writings.

[–] • 2 pts

Is the large paragraph yours of copy/pasta from the manifesto?

Largely, that large paragraph is correct. Everyone know it. It's knowledge built into our dna. I only disagree on the following:

1) Tax automation - there is a bit of naiivate about technolgy and economics built into that statement. There are more sophisticated and more accurate ways to deal with technology.

2) Forcing genetic engineering on others - okay I get what you are saying, which is principally that a lot of the worlds non whites have white roots and are the end result of our ancestors being outbred. The problem is the amount of energy required to do this makes it entirely impractical. It is far more likely that we will end up in genocidal wars than anything to happen at scale in this category.

I would say that if you look at the white nations: AU / NZ / AMERICA / CANADA / EUROPE / RUSSIA, you will notice a few things:

3) Our lands are basically empty. China and India are full in comparison.

4) If we were to just increase the birthrate to 5 or 6 kids per couple, the white population doubles in 20 years. It doubles again in another 20 or so. This strategy alone is the single greatest opportunity for our people. If we can keep on expanding our populations to completely fill our lands, the rest of the world does not stand a chance.

5) In order to accomplish expansionist goals we cannot engage in any activity that stagnates economic and technological development. You need to feed people, a lot of the climates are harsh and yet need to be filled. We will need economics and technologies at scales that we have not imaged even currently.

I mention the latter part to point out that our side is missing a few really big things: paralysis through overanalysis ... most of the things i read lean on overengineering and over planning. As such, we are missing some really big opportunities for how to resolve the issues of foreigners in our lands. The other big one is that we are very individualistic and perhaps even have a tendency towards shyness as a genetic group. We need to form local groups of men dedicated to building on the fundamentals of engineering and financial know how to move our people forward.

Otherwise the big paragraph is dead on.

[–] • 1 pt

This was just a shorthand for a lot of my ideas, painfully succinct.

Issue one you had was automation taxes, the whole world is going to end up doing this ti support basic income and education programs for workers and the robotics revolution alongside the AI office worker are going to force a billion people out of employment, trucks and trains are being automated now, some terrain wont allow current automation tech but this is a process that will win out. Anything done with just eyes and hands in an assembly line will be done more cheaply by machine, anything that is just data input or analysis will be downsized dramatically, the limiting factors are legs and balance in the physical automation and in digital automation the only real barrier in digital automation is human sensibilities but that can be anything fron letting a nigger keep doing data entry because firing POCs is racis or needing a human touch for designing software.

Countries that fail to retain means of production when the automation revolution is in full swing are going to have a horrible time and maybe even fall apart if you don't have automation to tax and are just letting your people buy foreign robot made junk your expenses become another's basic income, essentially your economy is one big slush fund for the other countries to educate and develop their populations.

As a final note my policy on taxing automation is that we should not tax home businesses or very small businesses, under 5 robots, 1 or 2 pieces of automated software, probably would require a grading system to prevent companies from cheating.

As to genetic engineering I think it the cheaper solution, we need to get the cost on it down to below 4 grand per baby if possible and use mass media to keep western beauty and culture envied and desirable. Spics are a net drain of $450k on the Treasury over a lifetime on average adding about 10k to that to dramatically reverse that average is just wise, basically everybody but whites and east asians are tax burdens, I said force but we would use creative propaganda, and incentives to make the first generation happen, those who resist would be forced to comply through a slow process of soft power, essentially we use rhetoric, coercion, and shame over decades.

The family and education reform system is designed to encourage stable young marriages and obviously we would offer only white families an incentive to reproduce through financial aid, this combined with intergenerational housing means a man of 26 could have an apartment in his family home he pays only upkeep on and 2.5 children with enough in the bank to buy his own home, his wife just graduated at 21(a year worth of pregnancy delays) and she has been working in his mother's home business part time since they married 5 years ago, his older brother is going to inherit the family home so he needs to buy a house before baby #3 over crowds their apartment in the family home. 6 years of professional work, the wife's part time work covers basic expenses, no rent and the work study program in school required to pay a wage was nearly enough to pay off the apartment expansion loan on his family's home, this guy should be able to afford a 250K property with no loan. It seems too perfect but the point is making concessions in a few places to make this possible in our modern world. That's a snapshot of reforming family and home life and should demonstrate why education reform is vital to it. In this scenario replacement rate is well beyond guaranteed we only need control over our government and media ince again which means pushing jews out, if we can push jews out we can reclaim the future they stole from us with relative ease. And further we can start practising this intergenerational home life today and as our enemies legalize lowering the age of consent we can turn that attempt at poisoning the youth into a positive result.

I skipped over a key reason for much of the above, obviously broken homes have broken our country and our race but we have data on divorce we know virginity is the single most important factor in successful marriages and that today the average girl loses her virginity at just 13 and this has been on a downward trend for decades it was 17 my mother's generation and boomer started the divorce craze, that's because average age of first marriage was 21 and rising at that time, today average age of first marriage is 29 and pushing 30 boomers had a divorce rate over 30% from just 3 years on average of sluting around, zoomers are looking at 17 years of whoring around on average, at that point why even marry? most of these white nigger bitches will have had an army of mixed race turds fall out of them by 30 anyhow. Just one premarital partner makes a girl 48% likely to have a divorce if she marries, each subsequent partner adds 2-6%, the average woman 10 years ago reported having between 6 and 8 partners before settling down. Marrying girls early is about stopping gynocentric collapse syndrome where it starts and molding girls to be wives and mothers again.

https://gvid.tv/v/BgjEHX I only just found this video but this guy identifies a number of problems my solutions would resolve even if only long enough to forestall our natural decline to reach genetic engineering.

[–] • 1 pt

Thanks for the follow up. Looks like I need to do more reading of your material.

In short:

1) Genetics - I see the point you are making I disagree on the economic viability. But, I will entertain the notion.

2) Technology taxation - I am not certain you fully grasp technology, how network effects work and how it all relates to human development. I would be happy to put $20 on any of your technology predictions being wrong. They will be wrong for the following reasons:

  • Human activity is elastic.

  • Technological development is elastic.

  • Technological development isn't a smooth line. There are all kinds of starts, stops, redirects and so on. Changes sometimes come quickly, other times take forever. There is no guarantee technological change will continue.

Let's take physics for example. First 100 years of physics, tons of innovation, we get nukes, nuclear power generation and put men on the moon because those were all low hanging fruit. What has happened in the last 40 years in physics? Nothing. Nothing at all has happened in physics at all, there has been ZERO progress. No one know if this is a misallocation of resources or if all the low hanging fruit has been picked and the distance to the next set of breakthroughs is so large that the human mind cannot cross it.

  • Economics is elastic.

There is zero chance any of your economic predictions even get close to being true.

You do realize that technological development ISN'T without reason or a goal? You do realize that the goal of technology is to develop a race of slaves to do the work that we don't want to?

Marshall Mcluhan, if i remember correctly, said something like "hunanity is the bilogical reproductive system of machines". Well, that is one way to put it, for sure. The other way to say the same thing is that what we all want is a race of slaves that will do all of our hard work. All of the worlds great civilizations were built on slavery of one sort or another.

All that is happening is that machines are doing more and more work for us. As we manage to offload labour to machines, economics will simply change what is scarce and what is not and the price we charge for exchanging the new things of value will change and we will just do that.

You can also say the same thing another way: if humans are the reproductive organs for machines, and we are building a race of machine slaves, then we can also observe that as hunans offload more and more labour on to machines we onboard more and more human friendly computation. That is to say, for every labour job our robot slaves take over we replace with a new job that requires more and more human friendly computation.

Jobs going away won't ever be a problem. What will be a problem is if we manage to make a general purpose ai. We are seriously fucked if that ever happens. However, because the universe is not swarming with intelligent machines suggests that either we are the first to get close to the idea or there is something about the univers that prevents it from becoming plausible.

Otherwise, I think we agree on most stuff. I will have to dig into your posts more.

Thank you.

[–] • 0 pt

He was a neurotic jew. Jews hate technological modernity. They see trans children as progress. They just want to bring back the dark ages when they took over monarchies and raped kids.

[–] • 0 pt

Was he a jew? A quick google doesn't reveal it. But, holy shit, that would fit perfectly

I have a theory that Jews went through a lengthy inbreeding chokepoint that basically gives all of them at minimum a low level functional autism. This basically makes them look at the world in a very cold and mechanical way. They don't make connections to other people very well, instead they get absorbed by neurotic (as you put it very well) kind of obsessive examination of infinitely useless detail.

Which is basically what Teds manifesto is. It is a cold look at the world and the only tools he has available to him is a stunted toolset. He can only describe the world in abstract symbolic fashion, they way you would examine a math problem or a physics problem.

People wonder why Jews look at goyim as cattle. My experience jews is that this autism built into their species not only separates them from being able to see them selves as part of humanity, you can literally read in Teds manifesto him edging towards self deification: Ted believes he knows how the world works, no one can even suggest that he could be wrong, he has the answer that the world should listen to.

Look at any jew. You call it neuroticism, I call it autism. Either way, they are genetic dead end.

If Ted is a Jew, holy crap, it would fit amazing well.

[–] • 0 pt

It's the same with James Holmes and his writings explaining "moral relativity". More autistic bs trying to apply math to psychology.

[–] • 0 pt

Oh absolutely. I have also noticed in dealing with Jews is that they have this absolutely weird sense of self assurance ... a kind of confidence that is not backed up by anything at all.

This is especially prominent in Jews that emigrate from Israel in my experience.

It's a kind of hubris you would bring to a poker game that gives you an edge in that kind of abstract game.

I think their autism either amplifies their self confidence because they have no capacity of thinking beyond their stunted toolset or perhaps the autism stunts the part of the brain that handles empathy and social relationship and throws out of whack their sense of self worth.

[–] • 0 pt

I don't think he was a jew, just polish. Usually if I can't get a last name hit I'll look up other famous people with the same last name...no jews. His brother became a buddhist heh. Probably felt guilty.

[–] • 0 pt

i NeEd EvErY aUtHoR tO bE pErFeCt JeSuS sTyLe!

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I read it a long time ago and thought almost the same about it.

The guy was seriously mentally ill and totally lacked any real world experience and his "manifesto" was 1/2 baked nonsense.

They praised him as a genius who made his own screws and gun but go look at the pictures of what he made and laugh.

He was no craftsman and I saw better zip guns made in 8th grade shop class....

[–] • 0 pt

He spends all of his time trying to make the case that technology has destroyed everything and that in order to be saved we must return to ... something nature something.

The problem with this idea is if you look back into history and sift out the jew lies, we've been having the same fucking problems since even before 3,000BC. There have been very few times when we conquered those problems.

[–] • 0 pt

I am not 100% certain what you mean specifically. If we were to group our problems into the following categories:

  • Problems as a result of technology that we invented.

  • All other problems.

Can you elaborate on which category of problems are you saying we have never managed to overcome?

[–] • 0 pt

jews, collectivism, women's rights, centralized power structures going mad, uppity mudbloods, and a few others. It's not that we've never overcome them, it's that we've never completely beaten them. They always come back to bite us in the ass.

[–] • 0 pt

Nah, Uncle Ted was right.

I could write more about it, but you didn't refute any of his arguments, and only stated your opinion as a matter of fact, as did I. Besides, Uncle Ted is about large-scale technological infrastructure, which either require or cause a certain way of complex social organization. His point is, that this complex social organization is unnatural, e.g. not the habitat we've been made for, e.g. must lead to disastrous consequences for our whole species. What he meant with "technology" is more what we call civilization, than just some technological gadgets. And in this he is correct.

[–] • 0 pt

I haven't read it in awhile but I remember a lot of it being pretty prophetic, and that it could have been shortened to reach more people who might have just glanced at it.

If he wasn't antisocial he probably would have been happy joining the Amish (provided the government didn't build a highway through the village).

[–] • 0 pt

Unkie Ted was an aspie, and further fucked by MK-ULTRA in college. He also was pathologically scared of women. But it is true that the industrial revolution was a disaster for the human race.

[–] • -1 pt (edited )

I was with you up until "the industrial revolution was a disaster for the human race."

Fucking ironic considering you are living in a home heated while not being filled with carbon monoxide from burning wood, with a fridge full of food you NEITHER had to hunt,nor prepare, food which is probably shipped half way around the world and is out of season and have enough leasure time (you don't work 18 hours in the fields that is for sure) to post using TECHNOLOGY developed only because the technologies we invented allowed our civilization to grow to economies of scale that allow for the research and development of things like computers, monitors and global communication.

Yes, please, illuminate us with your deep wisdom on how technology is a disaster for our species and how you propose to resolve the problem.

I'm sorry. But stupidity of your caliber has to be labeled as such. You can only post something of that caliber if you are a world class moron.

There is absolutely no way one can make the argument that our lives are worse off than those of our ancestors. I remember out houses with corn cobs to wipe your but, no running inside water and all sorts of things that existed only 40 years ago in Europe alone.

One more edit: I just bought a pack of 3 chicken breasts at the store. The total weight of the package was 1.5 lbs. think about that for a second. 3 chicken breasts, 1.5 lbs. I remember what chickens used to look like when my grandmother slaughetered them. They were fucking tiny little things that barely had any meat on them and were mostly useful for making soup rather than eating. Now a single piece of breast mean (half a breast) is LARGER than all of the meat on a whole chicke that we had 40 years ago. Never mind that I can go to a store any time of year and buy any kind of meat I want at what is basically dirt cheap prices. Pork in particular is unbeleivably cheap in north america for some reason ... probably because people don't know how to prepare it.

I just cannot fathom how the human mind can have such a lack of understanding of scale and scope of what creating all of these tools and systems has provided for us even if we take the worst possible ramifications of the tradeoffs that we have made in walking away from tribal economics.

[–] • 0 pt

The industrial revolution improved the life of the individual but that doesn’t necessarily make the case that it benefited society as a whole. Don’t make the mistake of conflating those two things. Nature vs nurture.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

pssssst (go easy on em, they only know what they've been told, those are the only possible reasons, because TV said so once)

[–] • 0 pt

I forbid you from ever using the internet again

[–] • 0 pt

The coital union of your parents has been a disaster for the human race.

[–] • 0 pt

Pretty fair review. I’ve always admired Ted, but your criticism on his lack of understanding regarding human psychology makes sense.

If you read Brenton Tarrant’s “manifesto” next, I suspect you’ll come to a similar conclusion regarding its usefulness.

Regardless, I think there are some good lessons to be learnt from both of their writings.

[–] • 0 pt

Ted's manifesto was Shakespeare compared to Tarrant's. Tarrant actually had 52 victims cause citing wikipedia as a source killed me.

Load more (1 reply)