/lit/ - Literature

>you can't be against taxes if you use roads durr hurr

>>16382790
Ok, so here's the first person who can't explain it. Anyone else care to explain?

>>16382780
ur picture skipped 30 years whats the point of going +2 years +3 years +30 years +3 years

>>16382790
This but unironically

>he didn't scream his anti-technological ideas into the wild collective unconscious as our ancestors have, therefore refuting himself
Joke's on you, thought is a technology

>>16382820
Second person who doesn't have the intelligence to explain. Is anyone smart enough to do this? Because right now you all are confirming the stereotypes about readers of Ted: you're all retarded and have no idea what Ted is writing about. You just pretend to like him for the edge and the meme.

>>16382780
>his smile and optimism, gone.

why do you keep making threads about this retard

>>16382780

Anyone care to read Kaczynski before making dumb, useless threads that are addressed in every single one of his books?

>>16382828
How can I take him seriously if he needs to use what he abhors to disseminate his ideas? Seems like he might be wrong then, since what he abhors is useful.

>>16382832
The answer is above you, dipshit. Takes a kill to kill a killer you imbecile

>>16382847
The refutation is above you dipshit

>>16382855
>it takes a kill to kill a killer
Cannot into analogy, can we?

>>16382865
Why are you on the internet if you believe Ted?
Seems illogical no?

>>16382882
HOLY SHIT
TED COCK SUCKERS BTFO

>>16382865
>>16382847
>>16382841
>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE US LIKE THIS BECAUSE IF WE LEFT BEHIND THE TRAPPINGS OF OUR TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY OUR QUALITY OF LIFE WOULD DETERIORATE!!!!
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN WE ARE MILQUETOAST ARMCHAIR PHILOSOPHER IS WE DONT TRY TO ACTUALIZE OUR CRITICISM????

>>16382882
Oh I don't. I haven't even read the guy. I'm just stupid enough to engage people like you with questions that have obvious answers.

>>16382904
wow, this is really making you mad, huh?

>>16382841

>>16382922
Apparently my criticism did too because you all shot back with the meme response in the comic. Why don't you do something to effect the change Ted preaches? It's because you know if you did your life would suck more than it does now.

>>16382820
Why? You can condone utilizing an existing asset without condoning how it came about.

>>16382922
>WHAT IM NOT MAD?
>YOU MEAN I HAVE NO ACTUAL RESPONSE TO THIS VALID CRITICISM WHICH SHOWS IM WRONG?
>YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS MAD!

>>16382914
>>16382922
If you losers actually believed Ted you wouldn't be on the internet.

>Anti-tech
>uses the internet
Sorry lads, can't have both. OP is right. You're all cowards who fell for an edgelord meme because you think it makes you a unique person.

guys please just let this stupid thread die already. op is being a dumb faggot. why should we feed him? no more bumps fellas.

Ted's method of getting his point across was terrible, and that unfortunately invalidated his point to the public.

>>16383055
Holy shit you're actually retarded! Instead of using the internet and all this tech you guys claim is ruining society, WHY DONT YOU ALL BAND TOGETHER AND FORM YOUR OWN SOCIETY OR DO SOMETHING TO ENACT THE CHANGE YOU KEEP PREACHING ABOUT FROM YOUR ARMCHAIR???

You're all a bunch of nerdy larping losers. Go sit on a hat.

>>16383055
>NOOOO STOP POINTING OUT HOW MY SKY-DADDY REPLACEMENT IS WRONG STOP STOP STOP STOP

>>16382999
fuck off

>>16382935
fucking based

He doesn't disparage all technology, you utter nonce.

>>16383083
>thinks he is a feudal peasant.

>>16383071
Not at all.

You, and OP, are making the mistake of thinking that Ted was an ideologue who wanted people to agree with him and give him upcummies for it, that he wanted to give speeches in Harvard and go on lecture circuits. This is wrong. Ted's philosophy is comically pessimistic, we passed the point of no return like three thousand years ago. We're totally fucked. There's nothing wrong with Ted using technology to do what he did, because there's zero point in not using technology, everyone else is. More to the point, we've already been so corrupted, that even if we stopped, we would just start back up again.

Ted wanted to get his message out that TECH BAD so that after the collapse, the scant few survivors won't make the same mistakes that our distant ancestors did, and will remain happy as hunter-gatherers. Ted got the NYT to print his manifesto, demonstrating that his methods worked, and demonstrating the moral superiority of his point (that the technological society will gladly subject people to violence in order to stop consumption and production from falling).

Absolutely nothing Ted did is out of line with his ideology. Go read a book.

>>16383083
Already been refuted. Why can't the peasant eithe LEAVE THE SOCIETY HE DESPISES, or DO SOMETHING TO ENACT THE CHANGE HE DESIRES?

Literally none of you losers have responded to this refutation of your meme-fallacy.

>>16383103
Go read a book yourself faggot. The only reason his schizo ramblings got published was he threatened to kill more people of it wasn't.

>>16383103
No reason to believe society would be rebuilt in the same way after a collapse. No reason to believe people would remember Ted's """warning""" when society became advanced enough.

All you've done is admitted Ted is a useless and vapid thinker if his goal was to warn people.

>>16383128


Correct. And now you know who he is, and are spreading his ideas. You're not just illiterate, but are also involuntarily celibate, so YOUR descendants won't be discussing him, as you won't have descendants, but other peoples will. So, Ted got exactly what he wanted, totally in line with his principles. He also demonstrated the wickedness of the technological society, which is totally cool with human death and suffering but blows a gasket when production and consumption are in danger.

If you really wanted his ideas to go away, you'd delete this garbage thread of yours and never mention Ted again. But, you cannot, as you are an oversocialized bugman, and must consume and produce for the technological society. Even the destruction of the technological society is a product to be consumed and produced, for you.

>>16383143
>No reason to believe society would be rebuilt in the same way after a collapse. No reason to believe people would remember Ted's """warning""" when society became advanced enough.
Correct, which is why he had to get the word out and didn't just stay in his cabin.

I'm not sure why you made this thread, you're just getting dunked on for being clueless. You could have just googled "unabomber" and read about him, he was pretty open about why he did the bombings.

>>16383160
The only people who discuss Ted seriously are losers from /pol/. Losers from are necessarrily incels. Looks like Ted will die out and only live on in sporadic cells composed of demotivated losers.

Aka you

>>16382780
>>16382805
>>16382832
There is nothing that says that you can't hold a belief and at the same time do things that would be contradictory to that belief if it were fully realized. We can hold idealist beliefs, but at the end of the day we live in the here and now where we have to do certain things that might be contradictory to our ideals in order to survive and thrive in our current paradigm. You can be anti-technological but still use technology to spread your message. There is simply nothing that says that you can't except for autists like you who can't handle the difference between ideal beliefs and practical action.

>>16383103
Buddy I agree with like 85% of what you're saying. If you think I value harvard lecture circuits, I don't. My point is that however hopeless his position was (and it was hopeless) the way he tried to convince the public of his ideas was not pragmatic.

If he wanted to be someone that 4chan.org/lit cares about, he succeeded. If he wanted the mainstream to think about his ideas, he failed horribly. The average working man agrees with most of what Ted says, and will never rally behind him.

>>16383171
Refute this.>>16383115
Nobody has yet. You literally can't you larper

>>16383075
>>16383082
you have to be 18+ to post here. also read a book first (bonus points if it's political)

>>16383179
See >>16383115

>>16383193
So you can't refute it. Nice you definitely won bro. Link me your reddit so I can give you gold.

Give a non meme response to the criticism. Why don't you enact the change you want to see?

>>16383188
>>16383175
I don't need to, Ted already did. The technological society will come for you, and repurpose everything it can get its hands on for its own ends. You're demonstrating this, whereby you turn the destruction of the technological society into a commodity to be bought and sold by the technological society. You demonstrate Ted's point in this very thread: you HAVE to have an opinion on him, you HAVE to consume, you HAVE to produce. If you truly despised Ted's philosophy, you'd never speak of him again.

But you can't, because exactly as Ted said of you, you HAVE to discuss him. You HAVE to have an opinion. Why? Because you exist for no reason but to produce and consume.

The peasant can't leave, because the technological society will follow him. The peasant can't change, because the technological society will kill him for it. The technological society MUST, or it will die.

>>16383182
Again, Ted didn't care. None of us alive now, or in the near future, will actually be able to enact what he wants. It's not for us. His only interest in us is for us to talk about him, and keep his ideas alive in some form up until the collapse of the technological society happens, so that those alive post-collapse can HOPEFULLY enact what he wanted.

Ted had no delusions about convincing anyone with the bombings. He wasn't trying to. He literally says so. He's SAID so, several times. Ted got exactly what he wanted. That's the point: this IS what he wanted. Let me reiterate: Ted wasn't trying to enact some anarcho-primitivist utopia.

>>16383234
Dude you're actually retarded. Genuinely hope you realize your mistakes soon.

>>16382841

>>16383247
You made the thread. If you want to prove Ted wrong, delete it.

>>16383234
You could very well be right. I'm curious if you have anything to cite that verifies your claim that ted's ideas weren't for us, but they were for some future population of people after an apocalypse.

>>16383292
Read The Industrial Society and its Future, Technological Slavery, Anti-Tech Revolution, or any of his letters. Again, the man is hopelessly pessimistic. The bombings were a last ditch attempt, a lashing out. He got exactly what he wanted, but that means very little.

>>16383311
If he got exactly what he wanted, he was an idiot.

>>16382780
Ted was relentlessly handsome.

>>16382780
How else was he to spread his message in a functional manner?

>>16383329
Maybe. But every second you keep this thread up is another second you aid and abet an idiot, so that makes you a retard.

>>16383390
This is horrible logic, because I want to discuss ted and keep his ideas alive, because I largely agree with them.

>>16382780
are you fucking retarded? Ted isnt an anprim you moron

>>16382832
Read ISAIF before writing a bullshit bait thread.

>>16382816
Yeah where are all the pictures from that 30 year gap??? I can't imagine...

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Ted_Kaczynski#Small-scale_vs._Organizational_technology

There you go, retard. You could've easily figured this out if you had actually read anything he wrote, but you didn't, because you're an oversocialized moralizing shitstain that's already made up his mind about Ted because of "M-MUH BOMBINGS"

>>16383561
Lol I bet you're an antinatalist too. Cope harder incel.

>>16383204
>double enter
you're the one with the reddit formatting you fucking newfag. fuck off

>>16383204
You are a fucking idiot. Ted's point or goal was not to get 20 random people from the internet to go make an offgrid village. What a dumb fucking cunt you are. A man writes understandably and clearly that he is discussing technology and its effects on a macro scale and there is still a retard who goes "just go live in the bush bro". Fucking brainfried nu-male.

>>16382963
Nigga I told you I haven't read him, nor do I agree with him. You low iq moron. All's I'm saying is
>ain't that hard to understand

>>16383292
>/lit/posters don't actually read the thing they're trying to discuss
Color me surprised

>>16382844
I'm not a scholar of Ted K. but as I understand he believed the progression of technology would lead to greater and greater enslavement of the human race. Not that tools in themselves were evil, but that technological progress will eventually lead humanity somewhere terrible. I don't see why you wouldn't use tools to prevent that fate if you could.

>>16384078
Great argument that proves you're not guilty of what you're accusing me of. Not like I claimed that I read anything

>>16383115
>or DO SOMETHING TO ENACT THE CHANGE HE DESIRES?
did I miss what bombing people and writing his manifesto was actually for?

>>16382780
He was proving how evil the printing press is by publishing such a hateful manifesto.

Is Ted still mentally sound?
He done anything of note in the past decades?

>>16382820
this, again unironically.

>>16382780
simple: you have to use tech to destroy the tech system which is the basis of the tech so that the tech itself eventually goes away due to disrepair and disuse.

example: let's say some radical group captured enough nukes to nuke key systems of industrial society such that the world-wide industrial system collapses. once collapsed, you no longer have the organization, social systems, infrastructure, economy etc. etc. to produce more nukes.

several people have explained the answer at the very start of this page using very concise metaphors. the fact that you still didn't understand what they were saying signals a low IQ on your end. that sucks man. maybe you shouldn't try thinking about Kaczynski's writings and instead watch cable news.

>>16384230
This answers OPs dishonest question but he’s going to ignore it

What a fag

>>16384754
written three books, published two, with another on the way, both getting great reviews and are some of the best books ever. of course censored by academics, media and all other tools of the industrial system.

why do you ask?

>>16384876
technotards btfo once again

OP is a dumb faggot probably a tranny

>>16383952
>BOARD CULTURE WHY ARE YOU GOING AGAINST BOARD CULTURE YOU CAN'T CHANGE BOARD CULTURE STOP STOP STOP INNOVATION BAD MEMETIC STAGNATION GOOD STOP STOP STOP

>>16384230
Ted isn't an anarcho primitivist, he's anti-tech because it will lead to the extinction of humanity in the near future. Ted has described himself as a "product of his environment" and is essentially a basic bitch libtard in his core sensibilities. He routinely refutes utopian delusions of what life after a collapse would actually be like, nothing extensive cruelty to animals, children and woman, when it comes to what personally offends him more, he almost certainly is more comfortable in full globohomo hypercapatilist bugmen life than he is for the alternative(even if he obviously has major issues with modern life, it's not like we are giving up a few moments in heaven for an eternity in hell) the difference is that the alternative is stable indefinitely and won't end life in a few millenia if not centuries.

This is supposed to be what unites anti-tech. It doesn't matter what your goals after the collapse are, just that the collapse is necessary if you ever want whatever you have in mind to last beyond your lifetime, the last point is incomprehensible to liberal reprobate activist types which is why he hard filters them. They will just co-opt and subvert and efforts into theater to appease their neurotic pathologies.

>>16383952
it's called a paragraph you pathetic platinum club member. It's what you do when you move to a new topic.

>>16382780
he´s a hypocrit who guessed
>>16382790
This but unironically
>>16382841
based

seriously it´s hilarious that people worship this meme philosopher.

>>16385880
this. and high-IQ pilled.

>>16385880
>is essentially a basic bitch libtard in his core sensibilities


this isn't really true. he's only a product of modern sensibilities in the most superficial sense i think--i.e. racial equality, etc. But on a deeper level he despises the morality of the modern industrial system precisely because it is so anti-individualistic and anti-freedom. he has written that the situation NOW in terms of individual dignity and freedom is bad enough to justify a revolution against it. in other words, things are bad enough as they are to need a revolution even if things were not to get any worse.

also, he does not oppose respecting other races, sexual orientations etc., because for him the revolution to eliminate the techno-system must be international, and draw from everyone--we can;t effort to spare any resources and pull any punches. So for him any of these other issues are just distractions from the most important goal: elimination of the techno-system.

I remember reading a letter he sent in to Green Anarchy where he mentioned having a homosexual experience as a young boy, which I thought was a funny thing to disclose in a letter more or less unprompted.

>>16387146
holy based

>>16387146
fake. provide proof.

>>16387185
if i find the issue i'll post a thread, but it's somewhere in issues 10 through 14 I'm pretty sure.

for context, either the magazine (which he contributed to) or some other random letter writer said that ted k.'s allegory "ship of fools" was okay but too dismissive of race, homophobia, etc. ted k. responded saying that they missed the point (which is true — just read the story) but for some reason, conceded that he had a mild distaste for homosexuality, either stemming from, or despite, a "homosexual experience" when he was younger. he didn't go into detail, and I have no idea if he was just experimenting or was molested, but I thought it was odd to just bring that up apropos of nothing.

I'm pretty sure that he actually answers this very question (the use of tech in service of his anti-tech ideology) in his writings. Of course, as usual for /lit/, no-one has actually read the shit and so it's the blind leading the blind as always.

>>16387212
yes i'm familiar with all his letters to GA and ship of fools.

this is B.S.

>>16387239
whats' the problem?

>>16387242
with telling lies?

>>16387239
lol why does it even matter? i distinctly remember this letter. i have a vague memory of it not being with the other letters, and it being in the bottom left hand corner of whatever issue it was in.

at the very least, do you remember him responding to these charges of the story being racist, sexist, etc.? i found an archive of it, so i'll screenshot it later (probably this weekend if i can't find it right away).

>>16387185
>>16387239
>>16387247
here you go, retard

cross reference with https://archive.org/stream/GreenAnarchy16_201610/Green%20Anarchy%20%23%2010#page/n3/mode/2up

>>16382780
so his ideas can exist when the power goes out

>>16387269
>lol why does it even matter?
1) because lying is wrong
2) it's especially wrong for controversial people or ideas that have few people to defend them
3) lying about personal details for a controversial person with few people to defend them is an underhanded way of reinforcing the society's caricature of the person.
I could go on.

You sound like the journalist Lawrence Wright who tweeted that Kaczynski sent him a letter where he asks for an interview. It turned out the letter was a fake sent by some weirdo in California. When the journalist was corrected about it his response was "who cares?" as in, "fuck it, i can say whatever i want about a controversial person."

Ted Kaczynski never said that and you've made it up thinking it would seem plausible to most people and if one or too people ever had a problem you'd go the journalist response: "lol, who cares?"
unless you can back it up, I say you've lied and you're a piece of shit for lying, especially about a controversial topic that demands discipline in truth standards.

>>16382882
brainlet poster read Ted

>>16387317
see my post above

>>16387309
I wonder if this is what inspired that flashback segment in that bad kascynzski show
>>16387317
lmao

>>16387309
not retard, just someone who insisted on seeing proof.

thank you for the proof. I stand corrected.

I have a new respect for you and the effort you went through to provide that proof. too bad this forum has no way of maintaining contacts.

>>16387317
harsh words too. my fault for trying to engage with an absolute sperg though

>>16387328
well, now i feel bad for calling you a sperg

>>16387335
don't feel bad. after all i did forget to take my meds today.

>whne the argument in the thread has a happy ending

>>16382820
>>16386284
>This but unironically
Even the "durr hurr"?

>>16387309
Based Ted.

>>16387309
this response is so fucking BASED.

what a joke. how can the editors of that journal go on looking at themselves in the mirror after this. what possible response is there? it's the ultimate and final game over. they have to just ignore what he says and go on coping which is all they do 24/7. fast forward to today and this same thing happens everywhere. as soon as you try to reason and make a point, people just completely bypass the point and accuse some stupid thing of violating their own linguistic fetish. we have literally become a society where coping replaces thinking and this little letter is like the canary in the coal mine.

>>16383115
>Why can't the peasant eithe LEAVE THE SOCIETY HE DESPISES, or DO SOMETHING TO ENACT THE CHANGE HE DESIRES?
Because he is prevented from doing so you fucking imbecile.

>>16387388
kek. this.

>>16383680
>Lol
>cope
>incel

>>16382780
because it is an effective way to spread his ideas and there is nothing in his work to even possibly suggest that one is wrong to use tech to attack tech. e.g. bombs in the mail. his argument is purely practical in nature and thus this is not a contradiction. he wouldn't have to use the tech to combat tech if the tech did not already exist.

>>16387404
this. well said.

>>16382780
Technology isn't a moralistic issue

>>16387388
No he isn't.

>>16383115
>what is family
>what are responsibilities
Truly a 21st century post.

>>16388210
yes he is. his options are either participate, or suffer.

here, you can try it out yourself. next time you think a bill is too high, just refuse to pay it!

>>16383182

The thing is that Ted K. (TK diddy as I call him) is incompatible with the real world and “the every man.” The every man needs to be gotten rid off. Which, thank God, teddy tried.
The every man is why we’re in the world we live in. The German students assaulted Adorno because he didn’t put his ideas to test. WHY?! Because the genius thinks and the pragmatic possibility of those thoughts are explosive.
Name a greater pragmatic philosopher than Theo. All other philosophers live with their ideas in their heads. Even the Great Nietzsche was killed by his own head. But Ted lived. He showed the world the inside of his mind and it was beautiful.

>>16382780
>Wants to destroy industrial society
>Believes publishing books advocating for the destruction of industrial society will further this aim
>Publishes books advocating for the destruction of industrial society
I see no contradiction, OP. I'm not really a Ted-head, but the man is, if anything, consistent with his beliefs.

>>16382780

You're pretty naive if you think any system can be destroyed purely from the outside
Small scale large scale doesn't matter a destructive process always has to start from within first the outside attack only finished the job

>>16382790

>>16382780
Daily reminder that he wanted to turn into a tranny and changed his decision at the clinic.

>>16382841
>Buying an Iphone and etc apple products today is the same as gathering wood to keep yourself warm in the medieval ages
Jesus christ, these people

>>16389151
>to feed myself, I need to make money
>to make money, I need a job
>to get a job, I need to be reachable
>to be reachable, I need a phone
>if I want to feed myself, I need a phone
idiot

>>16389182
>I need a phone
Then buy a flip phone instead of all the latest apple products every year you absolute fucking moron. You don't need to spend 600 dollars on a fucking iphone , you sub 85 IQ absolute dipshit. Goddamnit, why? Why do all of you types need to be so infernally fucking retarded? Always?

>>16389223
Do you think I have an iphone you fucking cunt?
I have a piece of shit nokia from 2014. You think everyone has the newest fucking iphone? Chill the fuck out, asshole.

>>16383495
He's probably in the background of some hiker pictures, lurking

>>16383179
yeah even Neo had to jack into the matrix in order to defeat it!

>>16383071
If he had not used those methods, he would never be mentioned at all, much like most of the philosophers with similar ideas that never resorted to violence. In fact, I can't remember any of their names even though I know they exist.

if there's one guy with a gun who's about to shoot a bunch of people, and you're against violence but have a gun, shooting that person in order to prevent more people from being shot seems reasonable to me.

>>16388214
>>16388261
brainlets of the highest order
You're literally saying any revolution is impossible. History refutes you. Get BTFO

>>16382841
is that guy david rubin?

>>16389434
>You're literally saying any revolution is impossible.
1. no I'm not
2. revolutionaries die

>>16389408
Sounds familiar

>>16383115
Because the Muslims had control of the Mediterranean and a good portion of the land was cultivated so there was pretty much nowhere to go.

>>16382780
> 202. It would be hopeless for revolutionaries to try to attack the system without using SOME modern technology. If nothing else they must use the communications media to spread their message. But they should use modern technology for only ONE purpose: to attack the technological system.

>>16384230
>he believed
No, he proved it. Hence why MIT scientists published an article about the genius of hys analysis.

Now of course all the detractors never adress his books and simply argue about his use of terrorism, which is hilarious given that he has disavowed terrorism as an efficient mean of revolutionary action in a later essay.

>REEEEEEEEEE HE KILLED PEOPLE
>MALADAPTED TERRORIST
>TERRORISM WONT ACHIEVE SHIT

Yes, Kaczynski agrees with you.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-ted-kaczynski-on-individualists-tending-toward

Ted Kaczynski on Individualists Tending Toward Savagery (ITS) - 2017


>>16388486
Yes, Kaczynski and Ellul agree with you. Which is why you must read L'autopsie de la Révolution and anti-tech revolution before sharing your sub 80iq opinion, while both authors have done an immense amount of research and analysis into the concept of revolution.


bonus letter that shows Kaczynski is not an autist and has a sense of humor

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-modernization

>>16383115
READ THE FUCKING THING AND THEN ASK RETARD

>>16390753
Literally the only person in this thread who provided a direct answer to OP's question by Ted himself and of course nobody even noticed it.

>>16382780
After I read Anti-Tech Revolution my life was changed forever. I don't see how I can ever go back to thinking about politics or society like I did before.

>>16391098
Same. I was a dumb 149IQ retard studying Philosophy, destined to be some braindead bourgeois racking up money in a nice appartment in paris 16. I had exhausted all the classics, read the greeks, read all of western philosophy from descartes to heidegger - yet apart from the presocratics, and seldom instances of radicality here and there (leibniz, hide ur eggs, early marx etc..) I couldn't even see the point of philosophy. Then I stumbled upon /lit/ and discovered Kaczynski and Guénon (back in '16 we had a bunch of threads on him )I'm not even kidding lmao. both are unrelated, even polar opposites (hardcore materialist and a metaphysician in the strictest sense) only similarity is that they are both trained mathematicians. It makes perfect sense now, of course the very best and very worst are discussed on /lit/, no in between.

fuck this blogpost but I'm certain I'm not alone

>>16391270
nice.

>>16390753
None of you are attacking the technological system by being on 4chan. Still haven't refuted OP