/lit/ - Literature

Sorry uncle Ted cultists, but a peer reviewed paper has directly debunked your cult leader.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bioe.12494

>>17699947
Well, for starters, in an anarcho-primitive society you are only bound to other things. Instead of the rule of law, you are bound to the rule of the natural environment, you are constrained to existence within certain limits by what the environment in your direct vicinity offers you, by whatever tribal customs you have to live with. The difference between the two is deciding which one is more propitious for you. And of course, you have to remember, in a properly primitivist society, there will be conflicts between groups, so you will not even be free with respect to movement or resources.

>>17699947
I hate to break it to you but anarchy is all there is. What you call the government is just people imposing their will on you as part of the world and there is nothing willing about it on your part. If I run out in the street and scream I DECLARE ANARCHY what happens? The suddenly anarchist police will throw me in the anarchically run prison.

>>17699955
>you are bound to the rule of the natural environment
Yes please

>>17699950
Ya got the full text?

>>17700097
Yeah nevermind, found it

>>17699947
Anarcho-primitivism frees us backwards to devolve into exrinction. No one will ever embrace it to its full conclusions.

I embrace advanced medical technologies.
So that we can live in the wild, in complete comfort, without making everything into such a mess.
That’s a far way off though.

free to get cucked murdered and raped by a gigachad

>>17700190

>>17700171
infantile disorder

>>17700211
Just imagining a possible future. Better than “return to monke”
I suppose you feel the same about Nietzsche

That's true, which just goes to show you how overrated and inflated the idea of freedom is. It's as much of a wild goose chase as the quest for equality is, in that taking all these extreme measures in trying to achieve some autistic utopian ideal in which this one particular value is maximized is a fool's errand. Nobody fucking wants anarchy or total freedom, that's why people formed societies in the first place, to defeat chaos and anarchy and create order. Orderliness is a much more attainable and desirable value than freedom, which has its place but NOT as the guiding principle.

>>17700210
doesn't she get drop-dicked by chad at the end of the movie

What could you do in an anarcho-primitivist society that you couldnt do right now? Youre still a lazy frog.

>>17700223
Freedom SHOULD be a guiding principle, but not an UNCONDITIONED guiding principle. A man can only be as free as he is with respect to himself, ergo freedom should not be taken as an unconditioned possibility, or even as a worthy desire, of every person in existence. As Nietzsche said multiple times, even surprisingly in agreement with Plato, a man who who has no leader within must look without, and secondly, if one asks "I wish to be from from all", I will only laugh and ask, "what are you free FOR!?" To break all constraints only to wallow in meaninglessness is the destiny of the "liberated" slave.

>>17700260
That's one way of looking at it, but I can't help look at it from a more sociological, systematic view. Quite simply: from necessity comes cooperation, from cooperation comes organization, from organization comes hierarchy. This isn't an escapable dynamic. Anarchism is inherently an entropic, destructive way of thinking that simply tears down all structures and replaces it with nothing but the howling primal fury of nature reborn. It's fucking idiotic lol

>>17700316
The point of my post implicitly was that anarchism is only ideal in the sense that it clears out structures that have already progressed to a stagnant and unhealthy form, a state of degenerative disease, if you will. From the desert, or the corpse, comes new growth and creation, or at least the potential for a much healthier creation.

As soon as the undermen, who desired unconditioned liberty, free from all law and exterior impositions, realize the reality of the vacuum they have introduced themselves to, the crushing negative-pressure of the void, they will destroy themselves in the attempt to take their mind off that emptiness which only waits to be shaped and asks for, and demands, absolutely nothing - a cold formless void which calls only to the strong. The undermen are left to their own will, and as it is not developed enough, they must either retreat to self-destructive escapism, or they will realize their own weakness and, in accordance with their lack of strength, acknowledge their own futility and subordinate themselves to those who do have strength, which is natural power. Thus, the structure is formed again organically, the cream rises to the top and the degenerative rampage of negative liberties, so common since the French Revolution, is destroyed.

>>17699955
>>17700190
Anprims are stupid fucks for a hundred reasons but please read any anthropology done after the 60s. Hunter gatherer societies were organized around economies of abundance and there are numerous hints suggesting that these societies had many forms of symbolic/social checks and balances toward power and hierarchy, whether it came from force of religious authority. Pierre Clastres' works might be a good start

if anprim is choice then others will choose otherwise and they will subjugate you with their robots and laser rifles

>>17701015
Doesn't change any of the points I raised.

>>17699947
Imposing your will on the world is overrated? What an odd thing to justify no technology. Technology has its pitfalls but I'm not going to assume humanity was any better before it got going. Also when you say "technology" I do hope you mean all the weaponry developments too. Not just flashy screens and databases.

Yeah I read Ted a few times too last summer when the riots were going on. Had a good effect on me for a minute and made me mad as fuck. But I accepted it by now. Would rather just learn the society we live in and make as much money off it as possible. Realistically if you tried to do what he coined, destroy it all, you would lose. The government would fuck you in the ass so hard it's just not worth it. Interesting ideas he presents but that's all they'll ever be.

>>17699950
>>17701094
Ted isn't anprim you dumb fucks, he has an entire chapter dedicated to debunking anprims
/lit/ once again proves they don't read

>>17701160
Who cares faggot clearly anprimfags like Ted and there are some commonalities

>>17700171
>>17700210
>>17700216
It is 3000 years in the future--

Two centuries have passed since the War of The Pink Flesh.

Having purged the earth of all women and perfected genetic cloning, mankind enjoys an un-ending epoch of masculine global peace.

"And so we find ourselves, at the beginning of a new age, an age of all peace and all bounty for all mankind simply because we have vanquished mankinds mortal enemy..."

"Brother! How do you find yourself today?"

"Happy and smiling, due friend. However our friend, our friend Charls in the wood has become somber."

"He had heard word from a passenger pigeon that you have become ill."

"Brother, silly thought, evilness has been vanquished ever since The Great Purging, good day..."

"Ah... Brother I see you are enjoying your physicality!"

"Yes, Brother..."

"Isn't it good being a man?"

"Terrific."

"Delightful."

"Are you close to climaxing?"

"Yes..."

"I shall leave you to it then, Brother."

"All praise to The Great Purging, Brother."

"And at last I find my dearest and warmest of companions atop the hill..."

"What has natures bounty brought to you today?"

"It has made me well... Brother... I am filled, I am filled with the fruits of The Great Purge. I feel it within me that
sometimes I do become somber. The past some times urkes me so. It reminds me of a time when a man proved
his worth to a pair of shoes, by getting on his knees and offering diamonds..."

"I just don't.. I just don't..."

"No more pain, no more slime, no more misery, no more shoes, no more big FUCKIN' shoes... Only justice, intellect, volumes of the mind, not perversions, of the feet."

"This day is very fine, Sam. How goes it, how goes it with you?"

"Peace, peace, peace upon mankind forever! Forever! I'll see you burn in the fires, burn in the fires you horrible cunt! Horrible swine! You bitch, you god damn bitch!"

"I'm so fuckin' horny!"

>>17699947
>Go and impose my will onto the world
>Stub my toe on the way
>Die of a preventable death due to infection
>My corpse gets eaten by hungry farmers whose crops get stolen
Truly, tis de dream

>>17699947
>I cannot imagine a freer society than an anarcho-primitivist society.
an anarcho-transhumanist one

>>17699947
Bruh but I dont want freedom, I'm a pussy I need protection lol

>>17699950
I'm not a Ted-head, but I skimmed the paper (you can find it on sci-hub like every other published research paper) and I thought it was pretty shallow overall. Tl;dr the paper's central criticism was that Kaczynski's argument was premised on an asymmetrical normative framework, "… according to which technology is almost automatically taken to be bad and non‐technology is almost automatically taken to be good (or at least not bad)," and that Kaczynski doesn't provide justification for this asymmetry, making him unconvincing.
>Sorry uncle Ted cultists, but a peer reviewed paper has directly debunked your cult leader.
I guess that criticism could be called a debunking if you were to construe ASIAF as a work of academic moral philosophy in which Ted was attempting to validly argue from accepted moral principles that we have a moral obligation to "kill technological civilization." But I think very few people who find his work powerful understand it in this way. Ted's aim was to redpill everyone who read his manifesto: to construct a conceptual apparatus which, once accepted, could bring together many different individual experiences of frustration and suffering and explain them in a coherent and satisfying way. It's kind of like how incels, once they've "become blackpilled," start to understand every experience of suffering or frustration as a consequence of female hypergamy and their own ugliness. Swap female hypergamy for industrial technology, and you have the psychological core of anarcho primitivism. Neither the blackpill or the tedpill is a rigorous philosophical position: they are both are narratives designed to make sense of the phenomenal world, and which operate at the level of intuition/pattern-recognition. So "The Unabomber’s Ethics" really misses the point: Ted isn't arbitrarily assuming that technology is bad/nature is good, and then building an abstract philosophical argument for revolution based on that premise, he's rather illustrating that this normative asymmetry is an accurate one through vivid examples which appeal to common experiences and intuitions. The idea that "technology bad, nature good" is as much his conclusion as is his call for revolution. But Ted isn't a theorist. The whole theoretical base upon which his work depends is drawn from Ellul, Spengler, et al., to whose philosophies he adds very little theoretical insight: something he openly acknowledges in 'Technological Slavery' (I'd argue that just about all of Ted's theoretical understanding of the sociological effects of technology can be found in Ellul's 'La Technique'). Ted is a poet, a propagandist, trumpeting views of technology formulated by real philosophers. So it's a bit silly to subject his work to philosophical scrutiny rather than e.g. Ellul's.