/lit/ - Literature

Starts off well with meaningful information and insightful ideas, then he proceeds to shit his pants and take a hard left turn into the idea of destroying all technology. A solid 6/10

>>17461041
yes
he was right

>>17461041
Yes. It's a very good introduction to technoscepticism. It gives grounding to many of the vague anti-tech anti-modernity sentiments we all, offers a good critique of leftism and a description of leftist psychology that maps well onto today's political climate, and is actually reasonably well-written. It's not perfect (e.g. the power process is too simplistic to really model human fulfilment), but it's short, concise, and highly influential. If you're willing to buy it, the 2019 "Technological Slavery" edition comes with excellent footnotes that offer some much-needed expansion on certain parts of the book, as well as the equally good essay "The System's Neatest Trick" (also available online).

>>17461041
Yes. It's even been reviewed positively by academia even though he thoroughly BTFO's them out of orbit. No one has even attempted to refute it because ever year it looks more and more right.

>>17461041
it's like 50 pages long dawg

>>17461041
you could read the whole thing in 2 hours you fucking faggot

>>17461233
I didn't know, sorry.
>>17461236
Don't care, if the book was bad that would be two hours of my life wasted.

Yes, but don’t glorify the man who wrote it. Keep in mind that Ted Kasczinski is an autistic serial killer that used violence to spread his message because he’s too much of a mentally ill pussy to properly distribute his works. As his lawyers put it:
>”You killed three people to publish a bunch of half-baked ideas in a newspaper. If you’re not crazy, I don’t know who is.”
I wouldn’t exactly describe his ideas as half-baked, as it’s obvious that he’s spent quite some time contemplating and researching, but I would say he was right on everything. Just think for yourself as you’re reading and you’ll be fine.

who gets all the bux for copies sold since ted is in jail?

>>17461418
*but I WOULDN’T say he was right about everything

Important clarification lol

>>17461041
strikes me as the sort of book you dont need to read as you've probably heard so much about whats inside already.

>>17461423
Not him; I think he has a publishing house he works with and they get all the proceeds. He gets his stuff published and they get all the money

>>17461094
Where does he draw the line on technology to destroy and technology to save? Writing is a technology, but I suspect he didn't advocate for its destruction.

>>17461341
Wasting time is part of life

>>17461418
He was unironically a pseud. Look at the books that influenced him. Math was where he was intelligent. He was completely disillusioned by the system though which is pretty based, but he couldn't break the conditioning of the system since he was part of a psyop in college. He should had just fuck bitches and done everything he could to exploit the system instead of being a good boy. This is where spending you're entire focus being "right" leads you.

>>17461682
Kaczynski is purposefully opaque about this. I suspect that he personally wants us to return to the state of primitive man--see ISAIF 203. But, in the interests of maximizing the chances of an anti-tech revolution actually happening, it seems he has chosen to remained non-committal in his writings so as to allow future revolutionaries to choose whatever goal is most able to inspire people to destroy industrial society. Unfortunately his revolutionary writings are by far his worst: he's a great diagnostician but no good at writing prescriptions.

>>17461094
>Ted
>A hard left turn
That made me laugh

>>17461041
Let me just say that the industrial revolution is the greatest thing to ever happen to mankind and showed that libertarianism works and the true power of the free market.

Ted Kasicskinki is a liar and an idiot.

The liberal mainstream narrative is lying to you in many ways. First off, they fill our history books with false knowledge about how bad child labor was during the industrial revolution.

First of all this is not true. Child labor became virtually extinct as soon as the revolution happened. It was a myth peddled by hysterical liberal moralists.

It was not public outcry or governmental leglislation that reduced child labor. These laws were passed decades after child labor had been abolished through market production alone.
The industrial revolution singlehandedly resulted in a reduction in child labor from 100% to 18% and kept falling afterward. Before the IR, children had to work or their families would starve to death. This is imperically proven.

By the mid to late 1800s which created the industrial revolution a massive increase in living standards for workers everywhere. It was true free market libertarianism in action. Yet liberals deny this and act like conditions were so terrible for workers. This is false. There is data that outright disproves it.

Government intervention only meant more starving children, meanwhile the Wild West was one of the greatest places on earth, particularly once mining resources begun and Manifest Destiny enacted.

I just think its funny how villified this all is. If the government is controlled for the benefit of special interests then it's not a free market by defintion. We were a free market for a brief period, yet the American government had to ruin everything. The problems people associate with the industrial revolution were actually that of the government.

Frankly, Libertarians are the only ones who understand basic and advanced economics and history to actually see the truth on this topic. People who debate with them constantly get btfo.

Yes, driver's licenses shouldn't exist, roads should be privatized, the government should be abolished, taxation doesn't actually work in funding the government and is morally wrong, unions are evil, no real socialist revolt of workers can ever happen because it will be rightly squashed by society. U mad?

Markets and courts existed before the first states, so government is irrelevant. Ancapistan existed before and will exist again.

Go on and keep sucking the mainstream teat. The facts and logic are on my side.

>>17461805
>he's a great diagnostician but no good at writing prescriptions.
That seems to be the case for most, if not all, intellectuals. Pretty weird, innit?

>>17463243
Do one better than cunt

Go on. Find the solution

>>17463243
Agreed. Kaczynski is slightly better off than most since academia isn't (or I guess wasn't; not much else he can do now) his sole passion in life, but not much better. Nevertheless it's probably a problem of entropy, no? A while ago I considered writing to him to ask him that question--what stage humanity should regress to--but I figured if I wasn't already on a list for buying his books I'm sure to get on them by writing to him, and then never get past airport security again.

>>17463249
If they can't do it, I can't either.

There is no solution.

>>17463209
You should have been a 1850s factory owner not a 21st century shitposter, anob

>>17463290
Fuck it, man. You're probably on a list already for being on this website. Live a little.

>>17463309
I'm on a list with 500 other idiots. Like we have anything in common. kek

>>17463290
that chart is exceptionally retarded

>>17463309
ur fucking dumb as shit

>>17463722
how come

>>17463214
>Reddit spacing
kill yourself
Libertarianism (particularly austrian ones chicago fags fuck off) gets economics and government correct but that doesn't matter when the person who's telling you that looks and is a retard (see the lp, gary johnson, jo jorgensen, you).
The modern libertarian (or the one perceived by the public) is some ultra-progressive faggot that wants "gay couples to suck eachothers cocks withs machine guns" and doesn't believe in age of consent laws. They view MLK as some libertarian despite his movement causing civil right forced inclusion laws and being a proto-socialist. They don't give a shit about culture or values or morals, gladly advocating for open borders or purposefully ignoring freedom of association.
You are the manifestation of that libertarian, of the one brought on by a mix of leftist faggotry and superficial understandings of libertarianism by retards such as ayn rand who don't understand that just because something is legal doesn't mean people can't discriminate against it. Your political party is the equivalent of dying your hair blue. You shout gay ass shit like "the political duopoly doesn't allow third parties" while still remaining in the lp. You understand that ron paul sparked a libertarian revolution through the republican party yet tell those who aren't part of the lp "they're not real libertarians" (if anything you likely hate ron paul and view him as some "fascist" due to your immense faggotry and hatred of any libertarian that doesn't want their child to be a drug-addicted sex worker).
Kill yourself retard.

>>17463209

Don't be shy, feel free to back up your claims

>>17463905
This. What are your sources for all this?

This thread is closed due to AIDS.

>>17463209
>>17463214
>libertarianism
Didn't read the rest.
>>17463886
>implying libertarians weren't always stupid, childish, and banal

>>17461682
>Where does he draw the line on technology to destroy and technology to save? Writing is a technology, but I suspect he didn't advocate for its destruction.
In my case I'd opine for a complete return to pre-agricultural hunting and gathering, which would indeed necessitate an almost complete rejection of almost ALL human technology. I said almost, because stone tools, spears and so on are still technology.

>>17463926
Despite modern advocates of libertarianism through the LP and loser brigade, men such as hoppe, Rockwell, and rothbard have done incredible work on economics and government.
Democracy: The God that Failed is the one book best describing this kind of paleolibertarian philosophy.

>>17463959
>Despite modern advocates of libertarianism through the LP and loser brigade, men such as hoppe, Rockwell, and rothbard have done incredible work on economics and government.
imagine posting in a ted thread and thinking anyone gives a shit about superficial garbage like "economics and government".

>not reading the superior exit cope book

>>17463209
Fuck off Fagin.

>>17463722
why ? can life prevail was cool and every thing ted wrote has to be the most "tedcore" a book can be no ?

>>17463927
can you talk about your idea in detail ?
even though i agree with you don't you think that going back is counter productive ?
that abandonning our medical progress is potentially dangerous ?

>>17461682
He doesn't. That's probably the main weakness with Ted's whole philosophy, and essentially all philosophies that are anti-tech in any meaningful way. There needs to be an ontological distinction drawn, which is what I'm working on at the moment.

>>17464144
Unless that book is about cleansing Africa no thanks

>>17461094
you literally didn't read the fucking thing retard

>>17463927
>>17464430
>implying technology isn't precisely what makes us ''''''human''''''

Yes. It's fairly short and can be read in one or two sittings.

>>17461041
fucking read and find out
by God you people sure try to read as little as possible for being the literature board.

>>17463791
Not him, but it has an Anprim section, which Ted has disavowed.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

>>17464558
Technology isn't unique to humanity. We can see ants use leaves and themselves to get where they need, for example. Advanced technology beyond that is, thus far, uniquely human. However, just because it's unique doesn't mean it's good or bad.

for you , no

>>17463290
>>17464580
Has Ted said anything with regards to traditionalists (Evola, etc.)? I always thought he might mesh in with them, whilst still being radically opposed on certain topics

>>17464600
He mentions Conservatives as being "fools" because technology has destroyed the past they want, but they also support the technological system.

I'm unsure if Traditionalism and Conservatism are synonymous, as an admittance of ignorance, but that's what I can recall on the subject. He might say more in Tech Slavery, which I haven't read.

>>17461341
you dont need to read the whole book to know if its bad you stupid fuck

>>17463886
I thought it was a copy/paste, it's really stupid. However:
> Reddit spacing
Is not that, is just spacing, learn how to separate paragraphs.

>>17464578
Quality>quantity

reminder that these french pseuds achieved more than ted ever did

>>17461094
The leftism shit was the weakest part of the essay. If that's what resonated the most there's really no hope for you.

>>17461202
Critics will try and nitpick around the flimsier areas but considering he wrote it in a fucking cabin with no access to contemporary academic journals or anything it's pretty damn solid

>>17463214
You heard about that one town in new hampshire that got overrun by libertarians? They basically infiltrated the government and made such drastic tax cuts that the only sheriff couldn't keep his car juiced. He had to walk everywhere, violent crime skyrocketed, there was a rape, a murder, domestic abuse, roads went to shit, bears started attacking the libertarian tent encampment in the woods.

Fucking hilarious

>>17464580
I'm the anon that made the chart. Ted has disavowed the lefty anprims like Zerzan because (a) they are extremely naïve in their views of the nature of primitive life (as the article you posted says) and (b) their goals are so vague and ill-stated that they cannot hope to effect a revolution (Anti-Tech Revolution pg. 124; this is largely true especially in Zerzan's case--he envisions a sui generis primitivist utopia fundamentally unlike the primitivism of, say, 20,000 years ago. Ridiculous).
Nevertheless, they have effected some good anti-modernity anti-tech writing, especially "Against Civilization." In my personal opinion, Ted's own lack of commitment to a revolutionary goal makes his second criticism hard to swallow, and Ted only wrote so much. I included them mostly because not doing so seems slightly disingenuous, and I think the descriptions make it fairly clear that they're not really in line with Ted's primitivism. I even hit them with the Papyrus font kek.
If the chart has problems its with the the /phil/ section; Schweitser is only barely connected to technoscepticism and Hagg is... well Hagg. Chart might be worth revising for that section alone; maybe something from the post-war French school. Any anon have suggestion for good technosceptic phil?

>>17461418
>”You killed three people to publish a bunch of half-baked ideas in a newspaper. If you’re not crazy, I don’t know who is.”
what a bunch of dishonest brainlets

>>17465829
wow a rape murder domestic abuse shitty roads in AMERICA????????

>>17461682
It's in the very first sentence

>>17463209
>Let me just say that the industrial revolution is the greatest thing to ever happen to mankind and showed that libertarianism works and the true power of the free market.
industrial society inevitably lean to the left, actually read what he wrote

>>17461041
a ridiculous ideology and a worthless read

>>17466714
Bump. Turkle and Carr are both good.

>>17465829
Which city Lol?

how do we feel about John Michael Greer?

>>17461041
yes

>>17465574
Paragraphs dont need spacing dummy

>>17461181
How's Anti-Tech Revolution?

>>17461202
Doesn't he refute himself?

>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.

>203. Imagine an alcoholic sitting with a barrel of wine in front of him. Suppose he starts saying to himself, “Wine isn’t bad for you if used in moderation. Why, they say small amounts of wine are even good for you! It won’t do me any harm if I take just one little drink.... “ Well you know what is going to happen. Never forget that the human race with technology is just like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine

>>17464430
How is it going?

>>17467977
'A Libertarian Walks Into A Bear'
https://www.vpr.org/post/upper-valley-author-looks-what-happens-when-libertarian-walks-bear#stream/0

>>17463209
based and keked

Is this true?

>>17470472
TLDR

>>17463886
>wall of text
>dnr

>>17470472
>traumatized autistic man goes trans
this seems weirdly common. Ted getting right to the edge then kicking it off is definitely significant

>>17461682
I am pretty sure the technology he wanted to get rid of is the kind that requires mass interconnected infrastructure. For example things made with parts from China, parts in the US, parts in Europe, etc. I don't know if I am just wrong but it seems like people such as >>17461805, >>17463927, >>17464430, are just not reading it correctly. It seems like a basic medieval farming village makes the cut here. The key word seems to be industrial, as >>17466771 points out. Personally I would rather live in a medieval village than modern times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsUxZC9dUgo

>>17470574
You are not wrong, especially not about technology requiring mass interconnected infrastructure being bad. The only thing Ted commits to is that he wants to roll back industrialism: that means mass production, mass transport, and long production chains. See Luke Smith:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JehxPoS27nU
The trouble is, imagine if we went back to 1700-s era technology: we'd be primed to, in about 50 years, have the agricultural revolution, then the industrial revolution. If we went back to 1000, despite the Dark Ages meme, we'd slowly improve our system of crop rotation, invent the brittle, advance mathematical, (al)chemical, and technical knowledge, and eventually do it all over again. A big reason a lot of people who really buy Ted advocate for primitivism is because anything short of primitivism is doomed to repeat the cycle. Not to mention, as ridiculous as it sounds, many of the technologies of the medieval era have been lost. For example in the US only the Amish know how to plow a field with oxen, or dig a well without industrial machinery--everyone else would, if industrial infrastructure "disappeared," regress to primitivism or die.

Kaczynski's ideal lifestyle is one where there is no high culture, no literature, music, art or pilosophy. Spending your entire day hunting dears or collecting fruits, then coming home in your hut to fuck an ugly, brutish woman with no manners or anything resembling femininity.

>>17470761
>ugly, brutish woman with no manners or anything resembling femininity.

Like a feminist rally?

>>17465177
you do

>>17472470
name a book that appears to be bad for the first 3/4 and then the last quarter recontextualizes everything that preceded it to the point where the book retroactively becomes good all along

>>17472522
Opposite of ISAIF. Was good first 75% detailing the problem, then says "we'll use SOME technology" failing to articulate why some tech is different.

>>17461181
Nice stack. You might enjoy Mumford’s Pentagon of Power as well. His point is similar to Ellul’s, but the path he follows is more grounded in social/cultural criticism. Pic related

>>17461418
KIKES

KIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKES

>>17461418
1. Not half-baked ideas at all. Just extremely disparaging towards the midwits who presently wield all the power.
2. His actions offend your middle-class sensibilities because you’ve been indoctrinated into believing that the state should have a monopoly on violence.

Who’s more well-known, Kaczynski or Ellul? How many people only know of Ellul because of Kaczynski? No real change happens without bloodshed, as people are just now beginning to realize.

>>17461423
He owes his “victims” a few million dollars, so I imagine they receive some of it.

>>17461041
He doesn't provide a solution but yes worth a read
Makes gommies sneed
Benis
>>17463214
>the facts and logic are on my side
You can't make this shit up

>>17461418
>Yes, but don’t glorify the man who wrote it. Keep in mind that Ted Kasczinski is an autistic serial killer that used violence to spread his message because he’s too much of a mentally ill pussy to properly distribute his works. As his lawyers put it:
>I wouldn’t exactly describe his ideas as half-baked, as it’s obvious that he’s spent quite some time contemplating and researching, but I would say he was right on everything. Just think for yourself as you’re reading and you’ll be fine.

Very normie take

>>17465783
Which part of his analysis of the leftist vexes you?

>>17470472
Imagine how much creepier his story would be if he went through with that *and* kept on his known trajectory? Imagine a transvestite ted kacynzski! Horrors.

>>17470700
I understand the problems you bring forth, but if people proceed with society in a thoughtful manner instead of being thoughtless and random then these problems can be avoided. Admittedly that won't happen, at least not perfectly and forever. As for myself, I know on a micro level none of that will be an issue for me.

>>17466714
Good reply. I would only really suggest potentially editing the picture to say that the Anprim writings are solely for their anti-tech perspectives and not the overarching Anprim view.

>>17472522
Well okay, with that proportions it's unlikely to become good
But you can't tell unless you've read at least half of a book

>>17463209
>imperically
Since you can't even spell I feel confident in dismissing your argument as drivel

>>17463209
based libertarian bro

>>17476077
truth in that picture

>>17461682
god damn it. You can tell people here only pretend to have read it

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Ted_Kaczynski#:~:text=It%20is%20important%20to%20note,steel%20and%20the%20water%20wheel.

Also ISAIF by far the worst of Ted. Anti-Tech Revolution and Technological Slavery are better, and they have cooler names.

>>17470472
>>17476097
Imagine if he had been born today. He'd be a tranny breadtuber and we would've lost a based mind. smdh.

>>17477711
I disagree, it really is his strongest and also has the most serious sounding and imposing name.