/lit/ - Literature

>>18275089
>Is Ted Kaczynski mainstream now
Mainstream in alt circles yes.

Yes, he already has the attention of academia. Philosophers have refuted his work within the pages of peer-reviewed journals.

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

>>18275089
If by mainstream you mean this place, then yes.

>>18275104
Yeah that's kinda what I mean. Like even 5 years ago, if you said you read Ted people would think you are nuts. But now it seems that people are gradually warming up to him, at least in hipster book-reading circles.

>>18275110
> I indicate why I believe it is important that academic philosophers scrutinize ideas that motivate acts of violence.

Ted never advocates for violent acts, one. Two, ideas that "motivate acts of violence" can include things like striving for peace or ending a totalitarian regime -- either of which I doubt the author would disagree with.

>>18275089
Kaczynski is retarted. No one takes him serious on an academic level. It's for incels and dumbass-hippies like you.

>>18275134
I'm not a Ted supporter. I agree with some of his ideas, but I'm nowhere near down the rabbit hole enough yet.

>>18275146
Wasn't one of his points that the problems from technology are outpacing or will outpace the benefits given? The increase in living standards for Africa sounds like a giant Malthusian trap to me, but I am a racist so my views might be colored here.

>>18275089
>Is Ted Kaczynski mainstream now?
No he is not. You are spending too much time here.

>>18275159
He was generally a misguided person who blamed the problems on technology when it was really materialism and consumerism

>>18275089

Ted was actually counterproductive in the sense of turning people against very good ideas about the spread of technicality over more "ritual","spontaneous", or "invaluable" human behavior. He based himself on the work of people like Ellul but threw away any kind of subtlety.

If anything, what Ted has done was set back the "going mainstream" of Ellul's ideas from way back in the 60's and 70's. If ideas on the philosophy of Technique and technology became rooted in American academia instead of the ironically meaningless drivel by Sartre and co., perhaps events such as Reagan's ascent to power would have played out very differently, for better or worse, such is the all encompassing and precise nature of Ellul's arguments about our relation to technology and Technique in general. Regardless, even if nothing so impactful happened without the Unabomber tainting the spread of philosophies that criticize technology back in the 80's, at the very least we would (in the sense of mainstream "us") be much more acutely aware of why things are the way they currently are in "late", capitalist realism. His ideas are agreeable and this is precisely why it's a shame he made these very ideas become associated with the luddites of old.

>>18275174
The problems we have with technology are rooted in materialism, I feel like ted’s anti-tech revolution would have to be paired with a traditionally-oriented Cultural revolution in order to make a positive change in the lives of most people

>>18275174

It is somewhat pointless to separate the development of technology from consumerism and materialism since our current mode of production does not allow for technological development that is not pointed towards the optimization of consumerism. If technology was not the problem during the first industrial revolution, it certainly IS an inseparable part of it now, because the cycle of tech > consumerism optimization has gone on for too long for the current tech not to be irrevocably tied to the process. In other words, you are absolutely correct in the sense that "it could have been otherwise with technology" but unfortunately the process is automated by now and technology is very much a significant factor in and of itself after automation of its consumerism drive has settled in.

>>18275233

To clarify it a bit further - automation of the drive means that any solution to "problems" of society under our current mode of production are only going to be solved through technological means, and said means are already pre-emptively limited in scope before any scientist can even conceive of them, to only evolve through ideas that will not diminish the materialist mode of production that funds it. Of course deviations are allowed such as climate change compliance and so on, but never a technological solution that "solves" consumerism in any sense.

>>18275110
This is what the deboonker looks like

>>18275134
"Academics" are impotent bourgeoise farts

This is either a glow thread or a zoomer thread. I'm not sure which is worse.

Ted is a midwit and if you want to find out who the midwits are just look at who seethes when they hear what Ted really is.

>>18275089
Yup

>>18275216
I think an ascetic Christian revival is the only thing that could really work in the West

>>18275146
This is valid if you're a Platonist or agree with Schopenhauer, maybe even Nietzsche. You can't refute technology only bad with saying but technology also good. You need to propose an opposed system.

>>18275258
lmao

>>18275089
It annoys me when right wingers try to adopt his commentary on oversocialised leftists, or when terminally online schizoids, who have the full capacity to simply walk away from their computer and live a technology-minimalist life, decry our digitalised world. People who idolise Ted either need to stop going online so damn much, or maybe they should read in detail all of the unabomber attacks. He ruined hundreds of lives, killed random STEM students and computer store owners, but people overlook it all because he was 'based'. That's not to say his ideas weren't worth any merit, but that he shouldn't be made an idol.

Also, for a genius he has said some pretty dumb things, even within his knowledge of mathematics. For example he thought pure mathematics would be automated before all else (when in reality that will be the final thing to be automated). He also hated pure mathematics and said it was a waste of time, but thought that handwriting was an essential skill. Finally, there's all the MKUltra stuff he was a part of in University and stuff that damaged him psychologically. He also was trans at one point I'm pretty sure.

>>18275287
The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

>>18275298
>(when in reality that will be the final thing to be automated).
Eh? Automated proof solvers get better and better, I'd think mathematics being automated is a good prediction.

>>18275298
>killed random STEM students and computer store owners
how is this not based?

>>18275287
Homosexuality will be looked back on as one of the great landmarks in men's struggle to be free of tyranny, to be decent and civilized.

>>18275319
civilized men don't engage in buggery

Ted has tunnel vision and has no idea what is really going on at protests. "Power process" is garbage watered down Freud and Nietzsche. He's a hack. Read real luddites like Pynchon, Ellul, Kirkpatrick Sale, Mumford.

Only zoomers like this guy because they're mentally ill nihilists and all the cell phone radiation since day 1 of their existence allowed too much calcium to enter their brain cells.

>>18275319
Catchy, they should print that on Truvada boxes.

This is now a zoomer hate thread.

>>18275347
Did we hurt your fierce gen-x gay pride?

>>18275089
>at least on an academic level
If you consider /pol/ to be academia, then sure.

>>18275298
>He also hated pure mathematics and said it was a waste of time, but thought that handwriting was an essential skill.
So?

>>18275146
whoever wrote this hasn't read Anti-Tech Revolution. This person completely misunderstands Ted's stance on tech

>>18275352
Ted was trans. He's proto-zoomer.

>>18275278
Not happening, Christianity largely doesn’t even exist at this point. I doubt it can recover from this

>>18275388
Who gives a shit? Ted isn't the alpha and the omega of the luddite tradition. He can't write worth shit and has no good insights that weren't already in some other thinker and expressed better. His original insights are fucking delusional and cringe (see the stuff about revolution). He's really a moron with a tip of the iceberg understanding about the technology and power.

>>18275378
practicing handwriting seems like a surrogate activity if there ever was one

>>18275421
if you've read the letter where he talks about this, he says practicing handwriting is one of the methods one can use for self-improvement. So it's not really a surrogate activity

>>18275089
I've been hearing people making more and more references to him recently. Often from people I wouldn't even expect to know about him. Anti-tech sentiment is definitely on the rise.

>>18275402
Christianity is alive and well, albeit mutated into something rather bizarre. You're in the midst of a Great Awakening, after all.

>>18275430
oversocialized cope

anything more than hunting rabbits all day is a weak power process

>>18275442
BLM is literally a Marxist organization, don't try to connect it with Christianity

>>18275402
If it was able to come back in Russia after what the Soviet Union did I believe Christianity can return in the West

>>18275159
>>18275258
>>18275282
>>18275287
>>18275300
>>18275388
The guy makes a good point. Basically, he says that Ted omitted the positive aspects of technology because he subscribes to an ethical theory according to which the benefits of technology are worthless, that is, that which is natural is good. For example, he speaks of the problems that the primitive man needed to affront, such as disease. But he does not think this is a problem, for he says that it can be affronted stoically. Okay, but why can't the problems occasioned by technology be affronted stoically? He rebuts this argument by remarking that the problems caused by technology are imposed, while those caused by nature are not ethically relevant. His odd moral view—that what is natural is good—also explains why he complains, for example, that our lives depend on plants that can shutdown at any moment but remains silent on the fact that primitive life depends on unreliable rainfall. Here comes the problem: Uncle Ted does not defend his evaluative standards—that is, his ethical theory—which rig the game such that technology is automatically taken as bad and non-technology is automatically taken as good. Once these standards for which Uncle Ted provides no defence are rejected, his whole argument collapses. The apparent empirical orientation of the works are just a ruse to cover up the fact that his argument relies upon a dubious evaluative standard.

>>18275488
This man knows. Now all you zoomers ITT apply yourselves and read Gravity's Rainbow.

As this thread demonstrates, Ted pisses off all the right people.

>>18275488
Jeez faggot,just read Ellul's work if you want to understand that worse than pic related is inevitable if tech continues to develop
No matter how you advance tech you get a dystopia,either you stop it,or the human race is dead,that's it.
Anyone that denies the above is a faggot.
Shit like that is why I don't Ted post,I don't care whether or not life is ''better'' now than 3000 years ago,but people denying that continued advancement in tech will lead to a dystopia are insanely retarded,atleast if you tried to be edgy like the accelerationists,but no,fags just deny it.

Lmao leftists still butthurt after Ted's completely destroyed them in literally 5 pages. What a based man.

>>18275442

>>18275146
>baby death
secondary, death is just a passage, better to die than live a shitty life destroying your soul. Speaking of that abortions kills so much babies it could maybe be compared. But at least before, the mothers didn't have to kill them by themself.
>women mortality
good (in fact only atheist and sinners are afraid of dying)
>pain killer
Pain is good for asceticism, or else you just have pussies
>reading glasses and printing presses
Bad because mass literature was a mistake and mass education too, since it creates people like him.
>Agriculture
So we become weak effeminate inactives.

Sorry for the stupid raw post anyway guys. But if you disagree you are gay.

>>18275338
Explain yourself

>>18275134

Interesting fact, in prison Kaczynski has exchanged letters with very influential people in politics, science and media. They are supposed to be made public in a few decades. So a lot of influential people probably have some belief in his ideas or think that he isnt batshit crazy

>>18275488
basically this

>>18275488
nature at least allows space for stoic contemplation how will you overcome technology problems stoically with a chip in your brain

>>18276411
that image is basically
>what do you mean you have standards and rigour!!!!!????

>>18276337
Dude probably has conjugal visits with female admirers too.

>tfw a literal serial killer and terrorist in a supermax prison is getting pussy and you aren't

>>18275488
>Ted presuppose the human is a natural creature adapted to natural
>Ted presuppose the human is less adapted to unnatural
It's not his axiom but his defense.
He gives plenty of reasons and examples to think humans are more adapted to nature. His whole manifesto is about that.
>Yet technology, even if artificial, are natural to humans
He explain why it's not.

>why can't the problems occasioned by technology be affronted stoically?
Illness is natural, that is, the body is naturally fighting that. The technological problems are outside of natural resistance of human beings, by definition, that's why they were created in the first place : The technologies are by themself superior to human capacities : go faster, stronger, further, in more place,...
Every problem can be affronted stoically, but that does not make the problems equal and equally easily affronted stoically. The whole modern world is the ennemy of stoicism and it's productions too. Hedonism, upon which the modern is build, is the nemesis of the stoic.

>primitive life depends on unreliable rainfall
Modern life depends on unreliable kikes. Beside not having kikes and world wars, people had ways to predict rainfalls and to substitute to it.

Tl;dr : "His odd moral view—that what is natural is good" is not his axiom but his "thesis". You confuse the two.

>>18276652
On Ted's change of fortunes with the opposite sex in prison

>"Before his arrest he’d had almost no experience with women, as he confided repeatedly to his diary. The opposite sex confounded him: What did women want? How did you know when they liked you? Why was it so hard? But as a notorious serial killer, he attracted the interest of women, dozens of them, who wrote him to say how handsome they thought he was. They called him “Teddy,” sent him provocative pictures, told him about their sex fantasies and begged to visit him. One woman, in a letter sent to Kaczynski’s attorneys, even proposed marriage. [...] The letters shocked him so much that even though he rejected the mental health profession he wrote to a psychologist to ask if he thought the woman might be mentally unstable. “Can unresolved anger lead to sadomasochistic sexual impulses?” he wrote."

On Ted writing to one penpal about women

>"In your letter you stated that you could tell me some stories about girls and that you would raise my eyebrows. I doubt it. Since my arrest three years ago I've learned things that have raised my eyebrows so far that they've gone all the way over the top of my head and are halfway down my back by now."

On Ted writing about one young female admirer

>"One is a young woman who has, by her own account, a very tragic history. [...] Today she has no close friends (though physically she is extremely attractive - she's sent me pictures) and she is desperately hungry for love and intimacy - and sex. She says she has "found herself" through writing to me [...] I find her letters rather disturbing, because she devotes a considerable part of them to sex fantasies of the grossest kind [...] But she's never had a sexual relationship with anyone (except her stepfather) [...] and she describes her masturbatory activities to me in great detail. [...] I find myself wondering, how did I get into this?"

>>18276748
>kikes
i was going to respond to you until you revealed yourself a schizo

>>18275089
>detach his crimes from his philosophy
why would you want to do that? do you seriously think the people who judge what is a crime and what isn't are going to actually consider his philosophy?

>>18276778
>Ahah you have a different political opinion than mine, I don't have to answer.
Good for me then, no-argument man.

To be human is to evolve and Teddy's worldview has 0 praxis. If you want to return to being hunter-gatherers, why not fucking monkeys, or bacteria? Why live at that point? It's such a cope. The only way is forward.
>>18276264
This is what the future will look like... once things take a turn for the better.

>>18276904
>To be human is to evolve
So everything is human (thus nothing is)

>>18275089
>Go into it expecting a cogent critique of technology and modern society.
>It's mostly just reeeeeing at leftists and liberals instead.
What a disappointment.

>>18275338
thanks for the recommendations, don't you think that even though your criticism could be true (im an idiot, ahvent really read him, just the manifesto and this ole martin oen paper), his "value" or "worth" of being more "popular" these days is to redirect to better writers philosophers like the one you mention, wouldnt that be good? (although being pessimistic people will reamin with the first impression of the first paragrapsh of the manifesto and leave it like that and not dig for others thinkers (better ones?) yeah what a shit fuck

>>18275089
He'll be recognized as an eminent political philosopher within the next 50 years. Something akin to a 20th century Bakunin, but for neo-Luddite revolutionaries.

I would rather see Ellul going mainstream than Ted desu.

Ted was completely right about "leftist" types hijacking any movements the System deems dangerous.

Think about the 1990s eco-terrorist/earth first/anti-NWO groups who held Ted up as a hero when the manifesto the came out. These were the groups monkey-wrenching, burning down ski resorts, rioting at the WTO meeting e etc..

The system quickly neutered them. Look how fast places like Portland and Eugene, OR went from "smash the system, burn down a car dealership" to "BLM! take a knee for St Floyd! fight the heteronormative patriarchy anti-transgender Nazis!"

Its pretty much a perfect example of Ted's ideas on how this could play out lol

>his crimes
truecrime is even further normie

>>18277830
You know what happened was the 2001 wtc attacks and subsequent war on terror. You don't know the difference between the two examples you're giving.

>>18275529
BASED

>>18276987
modern society is society of weak types and weak types are liberals

>>18276634
No, its making fun of people who "debunk" other's views based on their own subjective rules.

>>18277573
Ellul is too much of a leftist faggôt.

>talks about fulfilling the power process and how everything that doesn't meet this end is a surrogate activity
>blows people up out of revenge and writes a manifesto
tu quoue Ted.

>>18275421
It’s the most fundamental means of written communication. If you don’t practice it you end up with illegible doctor scrawl and a dependence on a separate machine to record a message you’re able to write and store yourself.

>>18275270
>midwit
The only places where I've ever seen that word are here and on /sci/, really makes you think
>inb4 read more books retard
I read extensive manuals on cooking/music theory/languages/etc or math papers lul

>>18275430
>one of the methods one can use for self-improvement
How is that self-improvement?
>I can write cursive, Industrial Society is CANCELLED

>>18278989
No one cares, braggart.

>>18279020
Ok you nincompoop

>>18276759
Women
>Spank me, Teddy
Ted
>Call me a shrink, this bitch is nuts

>>18276337
If you aren't exchanging letters with Kaczynski and other famous weirdos in order to eventually publish an absolutely kino book of correspondences you're ngmi.

>>18275089
>Is Ted Kaczynski mainstream now?
no hes just a cult figure your mum isn't reading industrial society and it's future

>>18275488
Why are you trying to refute him if you haven't even read Ted's points? You're just constructing a straw man on what you perceive Ted's writing's to be. Insanity!

All the same, what positive effects of technology? If I have a technology that say, cures aids, but in order for the machine to work, it must subsist on the suffering of ten new born babies per-day, is this machine good?

The answer is of course not, and the fact that industrial society even makes such calculus permissible is why destroying it is the only ethical answer.

>>18279013

>>18275233
> "it could have been otherwise with technology"
How?

>>18275465
The amount of people in Russia who regularly goes to church is not that big. There was no spiritual renaissance after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. We still live in the same mentality.

>>18275089
yes, people can no longer ignore how right he was

>>18279236
where can i read the full version of this letter

>>18279236
>>18279595

>>18279595
Google

>>18275146
read the condition of the working class by engles, retard-kun

>>18275271
wtf i love greta now

>>18275146
I'm pretty sure glasses, printing presses and pianos have existed for centuries before the Industrial Revolution

>>18277991
What?

>>18279236
>>18279609
Nice

>>18275089
Hopefully yes. His ideas need to be known by as many people as possible.

>>18276904
no. the only way is the now and right now we are creatures more suited for a life in the wilds than in the cities.

>>18279609
>>18279236
pretty based stuff as usual. i had already started physical training a few weeks ago and am improving on that. might learn to write better one day too. but i dont think i will ever cut down on my harmful habits such as social media use unless it is necessary that i do so. or if i decide to live in a cave or something. i simply cannot see myself being successful with that. and i dont think thats a matter of a lack of belief in myself.

>>18280620
ted would probably kill me for that if he could but i dont care im not mad or sorry about it.

>>18280620
>or if i decide to live in a cave or something
go monk

>>18275338
Ted is a great stepping stone into luddism, and for that reason I recommend him to people not familiar with deeper philosophy.

>>18275110
>your system is corrupt.
>"WELL ACCORDING TO OUR SYSTEM, YOU ARE THE CORRUPT ONE, SIR!"

>>18280698
here is an attempt at handwriting. so which do you think my handwriting is, based or cringe?

>>18275168
He was extremely popular on tiktok

>>18275110
look at this cocky analytic bugman

>>18280768
A bit angular in the form. For the content you contradict yourself but it might be a figure of style : lyricism face to face with cynicism.
I think it's good.

>>18280807
My first criticism for myself would be that I need to write more straightly and avoid bending sentences. And then I suppose I could make it less angular as you have said. I'm not sure what you mean by the content contradicting itself, it's meant to portray two perspectives at once.

>>18275089
Mostly something to do with that Netflix show

>>18280823
Changes between these two perspectives are too abrupt.
It feels a bit raw and unworked, as if the author himself is schizo or bipolar and doesn't know how to create a coherent painting. Even if you want readers to feel the contradiction, you need to work on that, so it doesn't feel amateurish.
>avoid bending sentences
Yes, it could be lighter.

>>18280858
Oh fugg I bought his manifesto after watching that. I didn't realize I was an npc

>>18280876
mmm. perhaps I wrote too shortly to be able to make organic switches. I might do better when I write longer. sometimes I do.

>>18280768
This is handwriting thread now.

>>18280932
Some pretended to be emotional seems to come out of the blue.
And the other switch feels like you didn't even believe in what you first really believed in.
that's how it seems for me.

>>18280952
nope, I actually think that's pretty good, both stylish and readable. I'd write with lined paper but idk I'd feel like cheating even though it's not.
>>18280960
I'll try to do an extended version.

not even doing this to improve on anything anymore kek

>>18275110
>refuted
I hope you're not being serious

anyway bye

>>18275128
He doesnt because he cant. He kinda does between the lines in Anti tech revolution when he says that he thinks a revolution group should have an "underground" faction

>>18278345
Fuck you nigger. You have not read ellul and he is more based than what your tyranny mind can imagine.

>>18275089
I have a question. I don't really read philosophy, but it is my understanding that his veiws were already anchored in Green anarcho and Anarcho-primitivistic philosophies. Is this true? and if so, was there any originality to ted's ideas?

>>18275110

>>18275089
they aren't seriously being taken seriously until they start doing what he did.

>>18275287
>Queer parent
What the fuck does it mean? That he's queer and a parent or that he's a parent of a queer kid? Anyways, Norway is so fucked man...

>>18280344
I agree, but we're even more suited to merge into one formless consciousness like the end of evangelion and interface with the world solely through cyborg avatars/nanobots

>>18276748
>Modern life depends on unreliable kikes. Beside not having kikes and world wars, people had ways to predict rainfalls and to substitute to it.
I can't fucking phantom why someone would sabotage their post by kvetching about likes when not even Teddy himself hated like and saw fascism and Nazism as evil and crazy.
I agree with Ted on the social ramifications of technology, I even agree that Jews are a problem, but the two issues are not inherently connected. Industry is a natural extension of human civilization. If it wasn't natural, we wouldn't have been able to do it.

>>18283326
*kikes
Autocorrected

>>18278606
He blew people up so people paid attnetion to his manifesto rather than to their daily consoomption

>>18275529
If you stop it eventually you won't survive.
You either kill humanity by (d)evolving it beyond recognition, or you just let humanity get filtered. Why would you prefer the latter over the former on any other basis than simple disgust? How is that even acceptable lmao

>>18276759
Where is this sourced from? lol

>>18279609
Are these actually letters to you? What his mail address?

>>18275089
reminder that no one cared about this faggot before netflix did a thing on him

>>18275089
it's cuz he'd right now more than ever

>>18284105
t. retard

>>18283326
>the two issues are not inherently connected
There can be totalitarism only if there is technology, that gives the mean for centralization, global war with nuclear etc...
The jews here are the epitome of the new superclass we can be crushed by.
Their historical link with modernity was not my point even though it could be a theory.
Why did I said that, for the point above and to filter my interlocutor.

>>18275110
Lol

>>18275287
Average anti Ted shill

That should tell you something about the seriousness of it, or the actual threat it poses to the system. The system can afford to adsorb Kaczynski-ite beliefs and package them together to be put in a corner of marginally acceptable alternative ideologies for malcontents to concern themselves with, because it is ultimately impractical and unserious. It is a good rabbithole for people to expend their energy into that will never amount to anything, because the whole thing is predicated on either a revolution that will never happen, or waiting for some miracle apocalytic event to end things for you. Expect to see more of it when those in power need to redirect energy from growing sense of anti semitism in the west.

>>18282380
apparently it means something else entirely not gay or sexuality shit
idk either

>>18275089
people on tiktok like him, but obviously haven't actually read any of his writings as it's the same people that claim to like him that have BLM in their bio and are reposting leftist protests.