/lit/ - Literature

>>12929207
writing an autistic manuscript and killing people doesn't legitimize anything.

>>12929211

yeah it does lmao

>>12929211
blow me fag

>>12929207

>>12929231
>rages about Stacies
>kill asians
wtf?

>>12929239
>asian
>daughter of americans
pick one

>>12929211
Based

>>12929211
Speaking of autistic manuscripts, have you read the Nationalist yet?

Google docs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kP9kq_AoDxhEjEPpkpMajw9Teq7qnyrsYFruYzYPU2Y/edit?usp=sharing

>>12929268
Shut up queer

>>12929276
>Idolising Ted Kaczynski

>>12929207

>informing people which of his books to buy off Amazon

>>12929207

>>12929524

>>12929276
have sex

>>12929207
>>12929231
what's your obsession with mass killers? Do you secretly fantasize about having los cojones to do so?

>>12929211
>>12929217
>>12929225
>Could have killed literally anyone
>Picks an independent computer salesman
Kacynzski is low IQ takes from a high IQ autist for low IQ autists.

>>12929559
was a literally certified genius though

>>12929576
more of a savant. He hated society because he was too autistic to have gf

>>12929211
he's still talked about widely and has his own netflix shows and pinetree gang is growing, he sure did better than those obscure lefty anprim cunts.

>>12929598
do you know what a savant is?

>>12929598
im going to be honest with you. I just had a vague notion of that words meaning before I posted it.

Greek philosophers were based because they did

>>12930047
what

>>12929991
That jacket's too long on him

>>12929231
Absolutely not

>>12929554
>having los cojones
Stop butchering languages, mutt

>>12929211

Of course it objectively does, regardless of the content of the autist's ideas. what it legitimatizes, is that the guy practices what he preaches, which was the point of the OP's posts, who I am not. This is a rare example of both FPWP and SPBP.

>>12929207

did stirner live stirner? or is it just memes
well, spooks

>>12929559
thats because the ordeal wasnt out of vengeance but because he was trying to make a point about technological surgence. If he was more malice, he would've targeted certain people ala the Feds or maybe even his bullies from school

>>12932285
This the Christchurch guy?
Didn't realise he was a fucking manlet, now it makes sense

>>12929207

>>12932349
Manlets truly are a disease brought upon earth. Every manlet I've met in school was an inexplicably angry, low-iq but fast-talking bully. Later on they learn to hide it, but still it comes out when the time is ripe.

>>12929207
He became the little girl he said he wanted to be?

fuck all tedposting

>>12929207
this guy

>>12929576
So is Sam Harris. What's your point?

>>12929211
Dude, he was MKULTRA'd, give him a break.

>>12929207

Why do anglos think reading kaczynski means you idolize the man or his killings? I couldn't give two shit about TK, his life, his story, his childhood*... whatever. I care about what he wrote.

Oh, I know. It's because they are incapable of intellectualism.
Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, they do is distorted through the prism of anglo moralism. They can't ever address Kaczynski's works in an intellectual manner over the fact that his bombing campaign was sensationalist. He knew the only way to gain exposure was through sensationalism (Every successful non-anglo authors do this; Nabokov, Houellebecq.. it's insanely funny that no anglo ever realized)

t. lived amongst anglos for too long

*The actual anglo trifecta is sex, race and money. Open up any famous person's english wikipedia page and half of it will be dedicated to these criterias.

>>12929554
What's YOUR obsession with mass killers? Literally half of your cultural icons from the 20th are killers. Bundy, TK, Manson, OJ etc.. I've lived on 3 continents and the only place where this happens is the US

>>12932840
Literally all my tall friends are obsessed with height. Obsessed with "confidence" and that type of lame, marketed shit. The only people I know who watch and read "alpha male" type content are my tall friends hahahaha.

>>12933379
that's a cringe from me dog.

>>12933390
There's literally nothing to "cringe" at except for the part where you're an anglo and you got mad reading my post lmao.

Cringe posters are one of the biggest cancer on this board, honestly. Don't bother replying with 'cringe, although you will, because I actually come to this place to share knowledge and talk about literature, so I don't read replies that are below two sentences.

>>12933379
He didn't write anything groundbreaking, dood. The only thing of note aside from perhaps some of his academic work is his kooky personality.

>>12933541
>He didn't write anything groundbreaking
You haven't read TK apart from the manifesto right? Because the first chapter of his first book is literally him saying originality is for faggots and bourgeois and he couldn't care less about rehashing ellul (he's open about it) I agree it's not groundbreaking, but that's not the point.

"Groundbreaking" and linking a work to an individual is a purely western phenomenon by the way, that is absolutely not grounded in intellectualism.

>>12933554
Oh so you just want to act like a faggot and get good boy pats on the ass for it okay

>>12933379
>t.

>>12933319
Ted actually has decent work to back his shit up though.

>>12929211
>killing people is bad
brainlet tier

>>12933319
>Sam Harris
He was literally a mathematical genius you retarded zoomer

>>12933863
yeah it is ;)

>>12933201
Like no one else

>>12933379
Thinking Kaczynski is interesting besides as a historical oddity is a sign that you aren't well-versed in the topics he discusses. It's like getting your mind blown by Harry Potter but edgier.

>>12933388
>manlet cope
Yikes

>>12929546
This man was a homosexual and a DYEL to boot

>>12930173
>mutt
it's a spanish expression, anon

>>12934059
C'est vrai qu'il faut sucer les auteurs les plus obscures pour être intelligent. Abruti. J'ai lu Ellul. J'ai lu Heidegger. J'ai lu Debord. J'ai tout lu sale déchèt. J'ai commencé à 8ans par Lavoisier et Buffon, ha ha ha ha. Mais oui je préfère clairement parler de TK, pour la provoque entre autre, pour trigger les petites connards d'université dans ton genre, les éternels puceaux.

L'extrême ironie c'est que TK est l'un des penseurs les plus intelligents du 20ème. Toujours les mêmes guignoles obsédé par le désir d'être perçu comme intelligent, qui s’étouffent quand tu leurs give a taste of their own medicine en leurs partageant ton QI. J'ai été testé au dessus de 145 ptdr. ah là.... ça pédale... le qi est faux enfaite... c'est pas la notoriété de l'auteur qui légitimise son oeuvre...et toute une tripoté d'arguments tous plus incohérents les uns que les autres. Y'a pas plus sale comme mauvaise foi.

vous avez flingué /lit/ vos mères les putains bien crasseuses

Ernst Junger

>>12929207
This. Kaczynski is one of the very few thinkers who isn't just some part of the "spectacle" that keeps people entertained and distracted.

Throughout history there are very, very few true revolutionaries. Kaczynski is right up there with Martin Luther and Galileo. Stupid brainlets, conformists, and cowards can't touch his logic.

Oh, and read his two books!

>>12933541
This is basically 100% wrong. Anyone who honestly reviews Kaczynski's second book "Anti-Tech Revolution" will agree.

And besides you're not making a logical argument.

I’m convinced Kant was a robot

>>12934504
post body

>>12934059
Nope. If I had a penny for every time someone spouted something that was based on NOTHING I would be very rich.

"Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How is Kaczynski’s well-reasoned, cohesive composition about how revolutionary groups should approach our mercurial future….I recommend that you read this compelling perspective on how we can frame our struggles in a technological society."
-- The Tech, MIT's oldest and largest newspaper


"Kaczynski's second book, Anti-Tech Revolution, is a true milestone in thinking about technology. It is a well-researched, well-written, and thoroughly-documented work dedicated to undermining the technological system before its worst consequences become reality. Nothing else like it exists. All those concerned with the future of humanity and the planet would do well to study it carefully."
-- Prof. David Skrbina, University of Michigan, Dearborn, USA

“There are more than a few people who feel that society's rush toward a technological future will lead to disaster. This book presents some pointers for thinking in broad, strategic terms about getting society off that particular road. …The reader will get a lot out of it. This is very highly recommended.”
---Midwest Book Review

"He has provided a critical vision that we've been missing out on."
-- Prof. Ben Brucato, UMass-Amherst, USA

“Kaczynski understands what those of us more fully participating in the technological system are unable to fully appreciate: that technological society is beyond rational human control and will result in cataclysmic harm. What he presents is a sound moral argument with what should be eye-opening historical social illustrations that are, together, too numerous to refute.”

—Jai Galliott, Ph.D. School of Engineering and Information Technology, UNSW Canberra

>>12929211
"autistic" lol. that's when you know he's on to something big. When one of the most brilliant minds writes something and people can't mount challenges to its arguments, they just play 5 year-old and start name-calling.

>>12929211

>>12935311
What distinguishes this novel from so many other fantasies is its grip on reality. Harry is a hugely likeable child, kind but not wet, competitive but always compassionate. The scene in which he thwarts a bully’s attempt to unseat him from his broomstick during an exacting game of Quidditch - a cross between lacrosse and hockey, played on land and in the air - will ring bells with the most level-headed of readers.
—Denise Yagel,

Rowling clearly possesses both an ear and an eye for the unexpected, working her own brand of magic with turns of phrase and flashes of humor that are subtle and sly. In terms of its prose, this book reads like spreading soft butter. Harry is as dear a boy as anyone could hope for, and the characters who support, confound, and downright threaten his life at Hogwarts are lively, engaging, and utterly believable.
— Publishers Weekly

There is enchantment, suspense and danger galore (as well as enough creepy creatures to satisfy the most bogeymen-loving readers, and even a magical game of soccerlike Quidditch to entertain sports fans) as Harry and his friends Ron and Hermione plumb the secrets of the forbidden third floor at Hogwarts to battle evil and unravel the mystery behind Harry's scar. Rowling leaves the door wide open for a sequel; bedazzled readers will surely clamor for one.
—Lindsay Frazier, The Scotsman

>>12933407
Yikes.

>>12935273
>he posts on a Cambodian underwater welding forum
also
>stopping AI
absolute lol

>>12929286
Absolutely did nothing wrong.

>>12935439
lol. the difference is, of course, you gotta really have something unique to say if people are going to publicly praise your work knowing you're the UNABOMBER. but logical thinking isn't you're strong suite I can see.

>>12935538
Ah yes, because spamming book reviews is the ultimate in logical argumentation. Play dumb games, win dumb prizes.

>>12929559
>implying a pissant like you could get a phd in mathematics

>>12935545
You've completely missed the point. The point is that the contention that Kaczynski's has no unique insights is seriously undermined by the fact the establishment people, (including Bill Joy, a prominent technophile and founder of Sun Microsystems), have risked public disapproval by lauding his work.

>>12935584
forgive the typos

>>12934041
>>12935574
The fact that he was a mathematician proves shit. This is appeal to (irrelevant) authority of the worst kind. There are more mathematicians who disagree with him, so by the same logic he's BTFO.

I'm not even saying he's right or wrong, just that this argument that "He was a mathematician so he must be right!" is dumb.

>>12935584
>if a famous person gives it any credence it’s significant

>>12935593
How many times do i have to tell you that he was a mathematical GENIUS you fucking knuckledragger. quit embarrassing yourself

>>12935593
True, but people who invoke this argument are not trying to prove, in absolute terms, that his work is therefore correct. They are trying to undermine other people's own illogical attacks and ad hominems directed at Kaczynski that are premised on him being crazy or unoriginal etc.

>>12935593
In other words, you are witnessing a rhetorical war between two different groups.

>>12935610
>mathematical GENIUS
It's clear you have little or no familiarity with the profession (I'm a math major). Kaczynski was not a GENIUS mathematician. His output (during his brief career) was quite good, but not genius-level. Maybe if he had continued doing work in mathematics he could have achieved that status, but no, the notion that he was a GENIUS is risible and doesn't reflect his output.

>>12935609
In the case of someone extremely politically incorrect, yes it is significant. It undermines the notion that he has nothing significant to say. It is not conclusive evidence for anything either way of course, but it strongly suggests one side over the other.

>>12935630
Meant to say
>the notion that he was a GENIUS *among mathematicians* is...
Mathematicians as a whole have, of course, above-average intelligence compared to the general population.

>>12935638
But there is another crucial component you left out. It is not just about any "famous person." It is about what side that person represents, what society they come from, and the degree of their are dependent on that society's approval.

>>12935638
I’m arguing that Dr. K is uninteresting because I’ve personally read his work and don’t think he’s playing in the realm of reality. I see how parts of it could be compelling to a certain type of person but ultimately he’s mostly interesting because he’s not a pragmatist, that is to say he is writing sci-fi for all intents.

Telling me that the kind of person who might find him compelling exists is not at all compelling to me.

>>12929559
>This

>>12935616
This is just parrying one fallacy with another.

>>12935651
Fair enough. You're welcome to your opinion.

Have you read "Technological Slavery" and "Anti-Tech Revolution"?

>>12935654
I agree. But read my follow-up post. It's a rhetorical war b/t two parties...that's what we're witnessing. The parties are too short-sited or don't have the time and space in these venues for an all-out logic war.

>>12935630
>In 1967, Kaczynski's dissertation Boundary Functions[36] won the Sumner B. Myers Prize for Michigan's best mathematics dissertation of the year.[8] Allen Shields, his doctoral advisor, called it "the best I have ever directed",[23] and Maxwell Reade, a member of his dissertation committee, said "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 men in the country understood or appreciated it."[35][8] Kaczynski published two journal articles related to his dissertation, and three more after leaving Michigan.[36][37]
>In late 1967, the 25-year-old Kaczynski became the youngest assistant professor of mathematics in the history of University of California, Berkeley
>A 1996 Los Angeles Times article stated: "The field that Kaczynski worked in doesn't really exist today [according to mathematicians interviewed about his work]. Most of its theories were proven in the 1960s, when Kaczynski worked in it."
Anything to say about this, undergrad?

Unironically.

>>12935685
this. x10. Why are people so desperate to try and discredit Kaczynski and his ideas? I think it says a lot more about their psychology than Kaczynski's ideas themselves. These poeple are extremely disturbed by the notion that the only way off the course toward disaster is for modern industrial society to collapse--it flies in the face of all of their brainwashing and education. Or, as someone said:

One is tempted to ask whether the schemes concocted by people like
Ashford, Hall, and Klein are meant as an elaborate joke of some sort; but
no, the intentions of these authors are quite serious. How can they possibly
believe that schemes like theirs will ever be carried out in the real world?
Are they totally devoid of any practical sense about human affairs? Maybe.
But a more likely explanation is unwittingly offered by Naomi Klein herself:
“[I]t is always easier to deny reality than to watch your worldview get
shattered… .” 139 The worldview of most members of the upper middle class,
including most intellectuals, is deeply dependent on the existence of a thoroughly
organized, culturally “advanced,” large-scale society characterized by
a high level of social order. It would be extremely difficult psychologically
for such people to recognize that the only way to get off the road to disaster
that we are now on would be through a total collapse of organized society
and therefore a descent into chaos. So they cling to any scheme, however
unrealistic, that promises to preserve the society on which their lives and
their worldview are dependent; and one suspects that the threat to their
worldview is more important to them than the threat to their lives.

--Kaczynski, "Anti-Tech Revolution" (2016) p.33

>>12935709
Oh wow look he’s projecting what a genius.

>>12935716
???

>>12935709
The pamphlet on its own is fine, problem is the way of "popularizing" such second rate primitivism. All about visibility, and almost no substance.
A bit like how Tarant is now "greatest accelerationist" now.

>>12935722
Here you have it folks, Uncle Ted fans don’t know the first thing about psychology.

>>12935723
You're opinion. But I think it's 100% wrong. I strongly suspect it has far more to do with the propaganda and education you've received from a media, academic, and government/corporate establishment determined to undermine his work than from an objective assessment.

>>12935735
I sure know projection... but help me explain the context in which you invoked that concept and how it relates to my posts.

>>12935750
>Theodore Kaczynski does not receive any renumeration for this book
who does then?

>>12935685
Read the very paragraph you copy-pasted from Wikipedia. How does it contradict anything I said?

>>12935761
ReMUNeration. The M comes before the N. The word "Renumeration" means, essentially, to re-number something. While remuneration is money paid in compensation for something.

>>12935761
Wild nature, and efforts to preserve it. That's who. Definitely not some criminal technologists or defenders of an evil industrial system.

why did he have to kill those random computer salesmen working at retail stores?

i look back on the way he was then, a stupid kid who did those terrible things... wish i could talk sense to him and tell him how things are but i can't. he's long gone and this old man is all that's left. i gotta live with the fact that i could never go back in time and tell him which future CEOs to assassinate

>>12935774
>The word "Renumeration" means, essentially, to re-number something.
Wrong. It's just an alternative spelling of remuneration.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/renumeration

>>12935785
lol

>>12935774
Answer the fucking question you pedantic shit

>>12935785
>why kill bunch of random people
Because it's 100% guaranteed way to get publicity, not matter how lame the ideology you're trying to broadcast. Back-rationalizing the pointless murder is common, as a weasel tactic to calm ones own conscience.

>>12935789
That's not entirely correct. It is still incorrect but it has been considered acceptable due to repeated historical mis-use through metathesis:

"Apparently a variant (by metathesis) of remuneration, probably arising by folk-etymological association with words in numer-"

Just think of the etymology: "numer" is obvious, and from latin it concerns numbering. But "mune" clearly derives from the latin "muneratio" which concerns "giving."

What has happened is that linguists have grudgingly accepted that due to metathesis people have constantly mispronounced and misspelled the word that they have just accepted the misspelling and considered the context.

>>12935785
Better the random peons than CEOs & politicians.

>>12935813
Imagine the publicity from offing someone with real.

>>12935811
Clearly anyone but him, how the hell should I know?

I could care less.

>>12935685
>>12935766
To clarify: I don't think you appreciate how high the bar is for being considered a "genius" in mathematics. Even if we restrict ourselves to mathematicians who are still alive TODAY, we are talking about people like Langlands, Smirnov, Witten, Gromov, Tao, and (until recently) Atiyah.

>>12935839
>>12935774
What's next. A spelling bee?

>>12935840
In terms of effect of just getting the manifesto published, not much. Don't conflate pseudo-intellectual incels who are not even able to pick targets of any consequence, with actual terrorists with focused objectives. Those are far beyond mere "baaw, nobody listens to me, SO I WILL MAKE EM LISTEN".

>>12935846
The problem with that is the same with the bell-curve. Once you go far enough into the extreme range, it becomes almost impossible to determine who is the greater genius because only those at the extreme range are qualified enough to judge, and even then there are huge egos involved (no matter how intelligent, emotion still gets in the way of people). This is why many people who study psychometrics tend to agree that after around IQ 160 it's impossible to predict mental capacity.

>>12935853
virgin ted vs killdozer chad

>>12935859
Which is why perhaps the only reasonable way to measure it at that stage is through one's mathematical output and its significance, and Kaczynski's is in no way exceptional in that regard (no doubt at least partly due to the briefness of his career).

>>12935846
Of course he isn't on historical levels of genius like those few. He went on a far different path. Your group theory homework is due tomorrow.

>>12935853
But Kaczynski's targets were of consequence, even though you might not think so.

I would argue that in the long-run, his selection of targets will prove more effective than if he had targeted CEOs or more famous technophiles. But this is setting aside the whole notion of practicality. Many of his targets were chosen because it was practical for him to reach them. It's very hard to actually make contact with high-profile people.

wow, this thread is still here. jannies must not work on weekends

>>12935882
>historical levels of genius
I haven't even touched historical levels of genius. I'm talking about contemporary mathematicians.
>Your group theory homework is due tomorrow.
I already took group theory.

>>12935882
>>12935894
also
>those few
There are many more.

>>12935884
>But Kaczynski's targets were of consequence
The consequence was people paying attention to what he wrote - and that was clearly the goal - to literally "send a message", and nothing else. It's like mafia goon cutting your pinky for late payment, and not bumping you off.

In terms of real consequence, he didn't stave off technological progress, not by one bit.

>But this is setting aside the whole notion of practicality
17 years is a lot of time. If his ideas had any merit, he'd be operating terror cell network with actual targets, blowing up power plants all over the world.

>>12935868
The problem with this is that it is very possible that if Kaczynski did not come to believe that mathematics was pointless and that the most moral and logically correct thing for him and others to do was to try and form a revolution against technological society, if he had adopted the values and priorities of dominant society and just focused on his career, I think he probably would have been one of the greats.

But he instead chose to devote his mental efforts toward understanding the influence on technology and society, the way societies evolve, etc. In other words, intellectual work devoted toward revolutionary actual. I argue that his work in THIS area (His books "Technological Slavery" and "Anti-Tech Revolution") truly are intellectual masterpieces. In other words, I think that if Einstein had chosen to become a revolutionary, he would have done very much the same as Kaczynski did, and produced the same level of work, albeit in a different area.

The same probably holds for many revolutionaries throughout human history.

>>12935912
I agree with the first part. I totally disagree with the second. It would not be reasonable to say that he was not more effective because his ideas don't have merit, any more than it is to say...well... the communists are effective because their ideas have merit.

>>12935931
"were" effective. I mean past tense as in communist revolutions in China and Russia. Ultimately their ideas were without merit, but they were very successful. The point is that the truth of an idea or a cause is often highly decoupled from it's success.

>>12935901
>>12935894
>I haven't even touched historical levels of genius
Gromov's work is far beyond anything those fucking boomers could dream of. You get high on your own farts or something?
>There are many more.
No shit.

Is it just me, or are these Ted posts always the most intellectually stimulating and exciting?

>>12935920
>I think he probably would have been one of the greats
Like I said, it's hard to say, but you're probably elevating him too much. There are many other mathematicians (Galois, Abel, and Ramsey come to mind) who had brief careers that were nevertheless legendary (from the perspective of mathematics).

>>12935941
>Gromov's work is far beyond anything those fucking boomers could dream of.
What the fuck are you even saying, dipshit?

>>12935931
>well... the communists are effective because their ideas have merit.
Intellectual merit. Practicality is what the insurgency is ultimately testing. Intellectual merit is necessary to start any insurgency. Going guns blazing all alone makes you a lone wolf weirdo - all you can do is write an angry letter, and that's the end of it.

You can strawman commies (or nazis, for that matter). The reality is that those insurgencies sounded plausible to enough people the insurgency itself was practical, even if the ideas ultimately not.

Now, convincing critical mass to go back to stone age is much more difficult than convincing masses that marxism is a good idea. Which is why it's not going to happen. Anyone with political sense can tell you as much.

Indeed "sending message" - is not entirely impotent. As long there's increasing frequency of copycats, it means the idea is catching on, there's a zeitgeist, and there's possibility of terror network springing up. This is how communism started - with sporadic anarchist terrorism. But primitivism is very old idea, and far less popular. Worse, incidence of ludditism decreased over time, so zeitgeist went again. Was pretty good mathematician, a third rate philosopher, and absolute political ignoramus.

>>12935947
It's true what you say about brief but legendary careers, but you have to weigh Kaczynski's mentality at the time. (You really should access Kaczynski's archive at the University of Michigan for his writings about mathematics and his opinion of his mathematical career).
Kaczynski had developed a hatred of modernity and a longing of wilderness from an early age, and this probably heavily biased him toward not devoting himself toward mathematics as rigorously. By the time he was in college he was spending much of his time reading anthropology and going away on nature expeditions. It was like math was that thing he was good at that was "fun" --like video games--but not something he was passionate about or devoted to.

>>12935957
YOu're going to distinguish between Gromov and Euler because one's more "historical" than the other? They're not genius enough for you? Stop repllying to me you retarded teenaged fuck

>>12935969
>convincing critical mass
But I don't think this is important AT ALL for an anti-tech revolution. This is one of the reasons why an anti-tech revolution is so unique, and has a unique potential for real success.

>>12935973
>YOu're going to distinguish between Gromov and Euler
Yes I am, you stupid shit. I don't even understand what you're trying to argue. Fuck off. You're probably a troll.

>>12935969
assuming you mean "critical mass" in the sense of a minority as large as the bolsheviks or jacobins were in their revolutions.

keep in mind you only need a very very tiny minority of highly committed revolutionaries for most world revolutions. The Bolsheviks numbered around 3,000 on the eve of the october revolution.

>>12935985
Elaborate? There are certain fantastic scenarios like lone wolf trigger MAD scenario. It's a cold war nightmare for the wargame pentagon honchos. Still quite implausible, precisely because it's a nightmare scenario and the system is on top of it.

>>12935995
>only 3000
You never seen 1st may violence, didn't you. The international were the top union brass, but you need ton of mooks, too. Same goes for hitler.

>>12936007
It's important to distinguish between revolutionaries directing action, and the common people who, in the moment of crisis, have to make a choice in supporting the revolutionaries or supporting the dominant classes. But besides, you don't have this problem with an anti-tech revolution ( the problem of needing an appreciable minority of the common people).

>>12935999
The system is highly complex and tighlty coupled. A serious diruption in one area can likly cause a cascading and ultimately catastrophic systemic disruption. You would only need a tiny fraction as mcompared to russian revolution, if only because how complex and coupled the industrial system is now. And you don;t have the problems of corruption, or maintaining order that prior revolutions have. Once an anti-tech revolution has been consummated and the system collapses, well, than the system collapses and there is no need or ability to control people or worry that the revolution will be corrupted.

For the sake of brevity I am greatly oversimplifying. But you should read "Anti-Tech Revolution" for a more detailed exposition on the points for why an anti-tech revolution is uniquely viable. You only have to read chapter 3. Its online I think.

>>12936063
>Once an anti-tech revolution has been consummated and the system collapses, well, than the system collapses and there is no need or ability to control people or worry that the revolution will be corrupted.
This sounds exactly like what Leninists said about Leninism. I have no reason to think it would be any more successful.

>>12936082
That's what the entire chapter in Anti-Tech Revolution is all about.

But you shouln;t need to read anything. It's common sense:

The leninists were devoted to creating a utopia, and therefore they needed the a highly ordered, complex technological system to manipulate everything and everyone to create their utopia.

But anti-tech revolutionaries have no such illusions. They only seek to destroy the existing system. And destruction is far, far easier than construction.

Also, the destruction of the industrial system, or, more namely, the disruption in one area required is a simple, clear, and concrete objective. Revolutions are often successful when the revolutionary goal is such, for a number of reasons, one of which is the impracticality of perverting the goal or having the goal become so vague and open to different interpretations and valuations that the movement is easily corrupted or drifts from it's intended purpose. A clear goal is far less likely to be corrupted. The leninists souch a communist utompia, but the vagueness of this goal lent it to corruption and the wandering interpretation to the whims of whatever faction of a faction was in power--let alone promoted infighting because everyone had different interpretations of their utopia and how to arrive at it.

Again, I am oversimplifying greatly. The point is there are FUNDAMENTAL differences in an anti-tech revolution vs. for example the communist revolutions that make it particularly capable of success.

>>12932285
This guy glows in the dark so fucking hard.

>>12935651
I usually swing pro ted in these arguments and reading the manifesto for the first time legitimately blew my mind, but this is a point that doesn't come up enough. "He's writing sci fi" is honestly a really good way to put it. His ideas are extremely elegant, presented concisely and clearly in the manifesto (he's able to say a lot with few words), they're logically sound and consistent, and alltogether just really satisfying when taken all together. Almost like a proof in math, you might say, which he was obviously very good at constructing.
I always thought a lot of these guys who work in or write about AI (goertzel, kurzweil) were fucking nerd quacks and I hated how they actually seem to believe muh singularity, this literally magical fucking event that would unironically bring about some kind of utopia. But when ted says basically the same thing except pessimistically, I'm somehow all ears.

Actually one of my favorite things about him ironically is that he doesn't like utopian schemes, thinks that things pretty on paper don't work out neatly in real life. Justifying an anprim revolution based off his own logical arguments from a purely theoretical world is in itself a kind of utopian scheme, even if he literally does want a return to barbarism and material scarcity.

>>12929559
>low IQ
Ted has a tested IQ of 170, 25 points above genius level. He was accepted to Harvard on a full ride when he was 16 and graduated a year early with highest possible honors in mathematics. At the University of Michigan, he completed graduate work in non-Euclidean geometries. His professors said it was so advanced that only a dozen people in the world could understand it. UC Berkley handed him a tenure-track math professorship before he turned 25. Had he not moved to Montana, there's a good chance that Ted would've been one of the best mathematicians of the century.

>>12936121
For the sake of argument, let's assume you get your "total system collapse" (whatever that means).

What happens when people start recreating the system? The incentives that led to its creation are there and will always be, barring some fundamental change in human nature. You clearly haven't thought this through.

>>12936256
Once collapse happens its extremely unlikely that the industrial system will ever be able to rise again. Industrial civilization is built up in a layer of stages, each stage of technology is dependent on the social arrangement produced by the technology. Once the basal resources have been exhausted, any post-collapse society won't have the social order to sustain the technology needed to extract the remaining resources efficiently, because the resources that only need a simple social arrangement will have been used up.

For example, modern oil extraction relies on an extremely complex and interdependent set of technologies to make it economical. The easily accessible oil deposits have been drained. Fracking is a nice little example of this. Fracking both sustains and is dependent on the social arrangement needed to produce and manage the technology. But post-collapse, it would be far to inefficient and impractical t use the resources needed to rebuild the infrastructure that the social arrangement on which fracking depends can sustain itself. It becomes a catch 22.

This was the opinion of the astronomer Fred Hoyle. Of course I'm oversimplifying for the sake of brevity...

The point to realize is that post-collapse, it simply is not possible or economical for subsistence farmers, village dwellers, and hunter-gatherers to build a light-bulb--even with all the technical manuals and information lying around. Or even if they did, it wouldn't be worth their time.
Modern technology is organization-dependent, and once the organization on which the technology breaks down, so does the technology. For example, when the roman empire collapsed, their techniques of road construction, aqueducts, sanitation where lost etc.

>>12936256
The difference with industrial civilization is the resources needed to build up to it will have been used up in a post-collapse environment, so that rebuilding is not economically, socially, or physically practical.

>>12936256
>What happens when people start recreating the system?
Also, you should realize that you're "begging the question"

>>12936323
What I meant was “attempting to recreate the system”, if that seems less question-begging to you.
>>12936306
Your point about unrenewable resource depletion eliminating the bottom rungs of technological progress and thereby rendering the higher rungs inaccessible is an interesting one. I want to think about it more.

Still, a great deal of technological progress is possible even without access to oil. I thought Ted envisioned a much more primitive level of development.

>>12936500
>without access to oil
*meant to say fossil fuels, more generally. Possibly certain minerals as well.

>>12936500
Actually, Kaczynski is extremely practical minded. He understands that civilization relies only on primitive technology. You can have civilization with, for example, an ox-plow, and any single individual can more or less easily create an ox-plow. There is no way moreover to prevent people from creative these individual-dependent technologies. To prevent them you would have to have world-wide policing, which would entail industrial technology! Unfortunately there is no practical way of eliminating icertain individual-dependent technologies. But organization-dependent technologies do break down if the social arrangement on which they rest breaks down.

Kaczynski essentially envisions a world-scenario where industrial civilization collapses, and we are left, after many years of chaos, with a situation approximating pre-industrial times. Pockets of civilization among a sea of wilderness. It will be a world where hunter-gather living is POSSIBLE, and the total destruction of humanity and the biosphere is prevented--but that is the best that is practically to be hoped for. Longer term events cannot be predicted or managed.

>>12936510
I understand. It was good to have robust debate with you....a rare and precious thing on 4chan. Goodnight.

>>12936500
I still encourage you to read "Anti-Tech Revolution." You can find a .pdf online I'm sure. Even if you walk away from it completely disagreeing with its conclusions, it's arguments might sharpen your views on certain things related to technology and society and the dynamics of revolutions.

Even if you were to completely pick it apart logically, it can still be of use to refine your thinking and practice your argumentation...in a "know thy enemy" sort of way.

>>12936520
>>12936528
>>12936555
Likewise. If you have the original Fred Hoyle reference handy I’d love to read it too.

>>12936597
Oh. That I remember from Fred Hoyle's book "Of Men and Galaxies" I don't have digital text to copy and paste and the book is probably long since lost. But you should read that as well.

>>12934661
Ce post est beaucoup trop basé pour ce fil.

>>12934661
mec t'as raison mais je pense que
>you aren't well-versed in the topic he discusses
ne renvoie pas aux aspects philosophiques de son travail
je le voyais davantage comme un
>guys you're talking about TK but you know nothing about STEM
ce qui certes est con

>>12934661
c'est vrai. Kaczynski, il est vraiment le plus grand penseur aujourd'hui.

>>12937507
ses nouveaux livres "Technological Slavery" et "Anti-Tech Revolution" sont révolutionnaire.

>>12929207

>>12936063
>>12936121
Anti-tech revolution is indeed viable only by nuking all of humanity to stone age. Religious proscription as imagined by Ted is not viable - eventually someone exploits prescribed technology to gain upper hand over the rest.

As for "the system" being house of cards, it's anything but. You imagine system as being top-down hiearchy, but it's far more connectivist than that. It can easily withstand immense stresses (ie world wars). Of course it's possible to shatter regions of the system. End result is failed states, which more or less operate in Teds vision - large parts of african continent, for instance.

>>12938120
you haven't read anything other than the manifesto, right? because you're basically parroting TK's points as counter-arguments to TK.

>>12938208
The argument is that tedposters are utterly naive in thinking they can somehow "crash" civilization on the whole by mere angry letters with retarded arguments that its as easy as removing the bottom from house cards which doesn't exist.

>>12929207

>>12937522
based

>>12937522
blessed and checked