/lit/ - Literature

His entire manifesto is about sabotaging major industries, killing industrialists and overthrowing modern society. You can't separate the art from the artist in this case

>>19441035
CHANGE BAD
>Humanity's been changing for the last 100000 ye...
SHUT UP

Glowie thread. Fuck you you stupid nigger. Nice haircut, asshole. How is working for Noseberg? Oh your boss is Anglo? Oh shit sorry anon. How is pilfering Chinese manufacturing secrets going? Kek.

his professor pen pal is pretty big brained too

this is a trite observation you could find posted in youtube comments or by a ~100 follower twitter account

>>19441035
>wants to save nature
>bombs random people, not occurring to him that everything, including us, belongs to nature, and nature to the universe, and the universe to destruction.

>>19441086
>wants to save nature
You're a fucking idiot if you think that's what Ted was about.

>>19441090
I haven't read his manifesto but from my understanding, he wanted to protect nature by destroying the industrial society, no?

>>19441090
The anon was right, you're the retarded one. Cope, seethe, dilate.

>>19441097
he wanted to protect people, Anon

>>19441035
>Can one separate the art from the creator?
In the extremely literal sense, no; it is inescapable that the man who committed heinous acts is also the man who had very clear sociological diagnoses.
In the figurative sense that you mean, of course you can; the author is simply not relevant to the truth-value of the work. Consider where you are: does it matter that you do not know who I am, or anything about my personal history?

>>19441097
>>19441101
No no no no no. If anything Ted was a supreme humanist gentleman. His mission was to save the dignity of human life in the face of total alienation and castration via technocracy and more generally, industrialization.

Teddy K is a dumbass. Industrial civilization will collapse on its own as global warming leads to the permanent breakup of global supply chains.

>>19441117
Kek. He thinks 'supply chain breakdown' isn't astro-turfed.

>>19441117
>2021
>still on the global warming train
lemme guess, Jesus is coming back too?
>the end is nigh!
is a sign of mental illness every. single. time.

>>19441116
But the people he wanted to save have relied so much on technology/industrialization, to the point of total integration in their life. Though, maybe we possess differing definition as to what technology he meant.

>>19441133
I am not talking about current-day supply chains. But when Shenzhen is sinking under the rising waves, or when a constant stream of natural disasters pummel Europe, or when large swathes of Africa and South/West Asia become uninhabitable, supply chains don't stand a chance.

>>19441144
Global warming is certainly a crisis of biblical proportions in that the "end times", human extinction, is very much a possibility.

>>19441147
Ok, I agree. But how does that make Ted "a dumbass"? What he said about technocratization was correct.

>>19441147
>Global warming is certainly a crisis of biblical proportions in that the "end times", human extinction, is very much a possibility.
this take was stale 15 years ago. are you a 60 year old lesbian who reads The Nation in print?

>>19441163
>But how does that make Ted "a dumbass"?
There was no need to mail out bombs or get put in prison. Literally all he had to do was sit back and relax, his vision for humanity is going to win out anyway.

>>19441170
I guess but it's important to have founding documents. People need to KNOW why shit was fucked beyond
>muh heckin GAIA-rino!
Industrialization has truly been a disaster for mankind.

>>19441168
BASED

>>19441116
My understanding is the dichotomy of Conservatism as an ideology being cast as an ideology based on the retention of social norms, with no understanding of how to apply that idea to technological progress and the social implications and impacts of that drastic progress. Which is a genuinely good and interesting take, or ideological qualm. I don't think Ted was a leftist, btw.

>>19441065
>humanity always changed
yes but not in a good way (the idea of progress is a fraud) and from what we know about the 'historical' times, modernity is quite unique
>life today is miserable therefore we must support the myth of the 'dark ages' so we can imagine an even worse past!
what a cope

>>19441244
Good take. I agree.

>muh values
>muh community
these are tools. values have to be reevaluated. the constant is power. what allows you to grow now? if it's being an individual and not a tribe member, so be it. and if other people can't handle it, that's the way of the world.

how do you think you evolved? do you think Nature spared the weak? guess what, we ALL descend from rapists and murderers. you don't win life by playing by imaginary rules no one enforces. you win life by cooming in young vag

He was right about everything, but the conclusions he drew were incorrect.
I think it has something to do with the aftereffects of MKUltra, something he insists he remained unaffected by.
History is a glacier. Anyone who has ears to hear, let him hear. 80 percent of people are animals, stimulus response. The 20 percent that have a choice can only choose to make their own reality outside of this.
The only way to control the 80 percent is extreme indoctrination, extreme coercion, or extreme sedation. They cannot be reasoned with.
A few letterbombs to patsies don't do shit.

>>19441266
>t. adolescent Nietzschean bio-reductionary BAP fag

>>19441268
>He was right about everything, but the conclusions he drew were incorrect.
Huh?

>>19441286
>t. vaxed and balding millennial communitarian

>>19441294
You should get vaxxed by your logic.

>>19441289
Just woke up. I should have said solutions rather than conclusions.
In essence, the system is destructive, but it is that way because of engineering and form. It cannot be changed. Even with trillions and all the militaries on the earth, it can only be steered.

>>19441302
Idk I didn't see any solutions per se in his manifesto. Haven't read any of his other stuff. I'm unironically a trad-cath so anything beyond total submission to the Godhead is vanity to me. in essence, don't try to argue with me on 'solutions'

>>19441117
He literally says that on the manifesto, that we're at a crossroads between the system surviving or being destroyed due to environmental collapse. He considers it a unique opportunity that will decide the future of humanity, which is why he urges revolutionary action to make sure that the collapse does absolutely happen. The revolutionaries he describes need only give the system a push as it stumbles on its own.

>>19441297
first guy here, post '94 is not me, I won't respond to your gay posts except to let everyone know I am vaxxed. The Pureblood Libel I cannot let pass unchallenged

>>19441312
>arguing for environmental collapse as the means to destroy "the system"
Market and infrastructure collapse I get, but this doesn't really make sense with the post you replied to.

>>19441097
He predicted the future pharma-technological totalitarism. Nature was a point because he could not escape in it. No matter where he went, technology would eventually reach and destroy. This is why he "fought back".

>>19441324

>>19441330
Kek

>>19441308
Can't pull quotations at the moment, but the implication is that the only solution to the modern system is total destruction. Which is how it will be, but it is foolish to think it will be incited by anything other than primal emotional, much less than by intellectuals (which, despite all of his rants against them, Ted is undoubtedly one, as are we. You can split hairs over leftism and all that, but it doesn't really matter).
>tradcath
hey man, you do you. I think all organizations are inherently corrupt and anarchism is the only reasonable philosophical position, accepting no authority except for the divine. But there are many pathways, and I would be a fool as well to imply my conclusions are even approaching perfection.

>>19441035
Only that when you have a little shithole that doesn't allow technology to advance some other people on the earth who research advanced weapons will just take everything from you.

>>19441340
>anarchism is the only reasonable philosophical position
institutions are corrupt because people are corrupt.

>>19441364
Yes.

>>19441340
Good take.
Also, this >>19441364 isn't me.
And I unironically agree with that.

>>19441350
*impales you*

>>19441323
He implied that Ted was not foreseeing the collapse, but he was well aware of it. The bombings were a means to get attention to his messsge; he says so as well. The revolution would take on a different (admitedly unspecified) form.

All tedfags are larping hypicrites who readily consoom the fruits of indistrialized civilization they oh so hate and never bombed a single campus.

>>19441401
>it is curious that you pay taxes
>i am very intelligent

>>19441380
The irony is that places like Sentinel Isles can only exist in a highly advanced globalized world that keeps them safe as a cute little amusement zoo for observation. In a trad world they'd get steamrolled aztec style by the first seafaring society that stumbles on them.

>>19441405
Bomb a fucking campus right now or you're a larping fag simple as. Tedfags have no argument against this. Go ahead and use your regular cope and call me a glowie or whatever, the fact is that Ted did fight for his ideals and you don't, he'd despise and spit on you.

>>19441415
Not him but Ted K did not say you should bomb campuses. He did not advocate for bombing people. Yes people are hypocrites, but the truth of the matter us wgat Ted proposed as a solution is unattainable, it was so in the 90s and it's even more impossible today. You simply cannot coordinate a worldwide rebellion against technology at the same time. It simply cannot be done. That doesn't mean you cannot agree with what he says. He's 100% correct.

>>19441415
>fight for ideas
>end up in a supermax
There is no honor in being a loser.

>>19441117
I don't believe global warming will disrupt supply chains. A technical problem always begets a technical solution ad infinitum. The climate crisis is very far from reaching that point and the damage that will continue to occur until that point will be immeasurable.

>>19441244
I think conservatives will see something like proliferating gender identities and locate the problem there -- in individual behavior -- but that might be more a product of social atomization in a broader sense. There's no real way for society to coordinate or manage these conflicts other than through the market, which includes a media market which creates fear about these changes (see right-wing tabloids). So, conservative paranoia and proliferating, atomized gender identities exist together in a field of tension both depending and opposing one another.

That is essentially the logic of economic substructure determining the political superstructure which reinforces the former. Women's different treatment in the early tribal society and then feudal and then capitalist society is a typical reflection of how the economic base has been influencing the political superstructure including the ideology. So the idea here is that the active political demand from LGBTQs comparing with relative silence during the feudal age is a reflection of the capitalist society where everyone has been atomized.

But, while the feudal stage was more advanced than the classic age in terms of social productivity, treatment in terms of religious tolerance, equality and individualism were worse. So the idea here is that the society doesn't always progress linearly to be more "advanced" but rather it’s just an adaption to economic substructure -- in the feudal age that demanded strong oppression. That is also why LGBTQ and the transformation of the conservative group into liberals (fundamentally) are not some random spawns but structural in capitalism. And it is not a surprise that capitalism worldwide has entered a crisis and oppression and inequality have reached the highest ratio since 1945.

Now, you could tell my idea is to enhance social equality and engage in redistribution, which is essentially a socialist job. But that would require the ceasing of identity politics (black vs. white, men vs. women, straight vs. gay) because identity politics transforms or externalizes the social class oppression into another form. That would also probably require that everyone "give up" something in return, so conservatives would have to cease oppression so others are not denied their pleasure and treat people with respect while the LGBTQ side would have to give up waving their banner and otherwise provoking the conservative impulse. Otherwise everyone will keep accelerating the car to the south to common ruin when they're supposed to go north to common prosperity.

>>19441436
Nigger what? He actively urged his readers to sabotage and subvert all of modern society.

>>19441075
Yes because Ted popularised it retard. Obviously his adherents will embody his takes

Go back to twitter faggot

>>19441678
>a media market which creates fear about these changes (see right-wing tabloids)

>>19441678
>conservatives would have to cease oppression
Dude who the fuck are conservatives oppressing? How? If you mention you are christian you have just cut off your chances at anything by 90%. How are "conservatives" actively oppressing anyone? Because every now and then someone tried to take measures againts hordes and hordes of illegal immigrants the conservatives are "oppressing"? You can't even hint that a woman who's currently sucking 12 dicks at the same time MAY be a bit promiscuous, that's bigotry. How high on HRT can you be to believe that conservatives are "oppressing" shit? Every single institution and media outlet is favoring the "minorities", BLM and all this shit.

>>19441711
It was bait... you've been baited.

>>19441715
ah, fuck. a moment of weakness

>>19441711
They're oppressing all the lgbtq individuals in the Bible belt and other people who do not follow the judeo Christian God

>>19441350
Yup. That's why he said the revolution must be done worldwide and simultaneously. Because nationalism is the greatest promoter of technology

>>19441086
It was actually by all accounts rational, because he knew that had he not committed those acts, his Manifesto won't be read today. He is literally acting out the logical consequences of his Thought.

>>19441997
If you don't mind spoonfeeding me further, let's just assume the revolution actually happens. What mechanisms do we set in place so people stay that way and don't build advanced technology in order to conquer everyone else?

>>19441436
It could be that a massive technological catastrophe both increases anti-tech awareness and fragilizes the system in such a manner than a revolution could be led to success.

>>19441097
He is an anarcho-primitivists.
Anarcho-Primitivists hate nature as much as they hate technology.
man vs nature + man vs machine

>>19442092
He's not an anarcho-primitivist. He wrote an essay criticizing it. He is more a Neo-Luddite than Anarcho-primitivist

>>19442051
Chapter II of anti-tech revolution highlights such a crucial aspect of materialist thought, seemingly obvious but quite often overlooked for ideological reasons: The Development of a Society Can Never Be Subject to Rational Human Control.
Human will is not a historical determinant, the delusion of planning, organizing and rationalisation through reason is rendered obsolete by materialists. Marx, Lukaczs and Debord for the ideological implications. Kaczynski for the argumentation on the basis of complex system mathematics.

>>19441086
>everything is nature

You've said nothing.

>>19442108
He is not "anprim" on ideoligcal grounds, but his individal preference is that of paleolithic life. He understands his personal predilections are just that, and that puts him above every ideologue and narcissists in the political field.

It doesn't matter because anti-tech thought is invested in the destruction of the current techno-industrial world and social order. The planification of a post-revolution world is not of our concerns because we understand such planification is not simply prone to ideological biases, but made possible by a glaring error in the development of philosophy, such planification is simply not possible. It is incoherent with materialism, as human will is not a determinant, consciousness is passive-reactive and ideology exists à posteriori. We are determined as revolutionary agents and will focus our efforts towards actualizing our determinations. Those who are not are objective political ennemies and no energy should be wasted trying to 'convert' them, it would be a misunderstanding of how material conditions shape us.

Kaczynski is the latest iteration in materialist thought. Right about everything, most important voice of our times etc etc...

>>19441072
Wow, did he read Nietzsche?

>>19441464
What a ridiculous statement. You do not gain honor or dishonor by mere victory or defeat.

>>19441401
Where's that Bors comic when you need it?

>>19441147
>Global warming is certainly a crisis of biblical proportions in that the "end times", human extinction, is very much a possibility.

No, life will just be a lot harder in several decades and some people living by the coast will be displaced.

>>19443698
>Co2 nowhere near peak optimal levels for plant growth
>Life will be harder
Ngmi

>>19441410
You mean like how the colonial empires that came across them just decided to ignore them?

>>19441168

> trash opinion
> anime pic

color me surprised

>>19441247
> the idea of progress is a fraud
> life today is miserable therefore we must support the myth of the 'dark ages' so we can imagine an even worse past!

I don't know anon, life in the past was pretty shitty. Denying the fact that modern medicine and technology have mage our lives incredibly easier and more comfortable by saying "durr but in the past you had le based tradwife and breath clean air and eat organic food" is kinda retarded

>>19441035
>Can one separate the art from the creator?
This question makes no sense. Art is already separated from the creator by the time you encounter it. An artwork begins as an idea belonging to mind of the artist, and artistic creation—writing, sculpting, composing, &c.—is the process by which the artist transforms the internal idea into something external and separate from the mind i.e. something with an independent existence.

>>19441067
Lmao

>>19441734
how

Murder is a great ad campaign

>>19441705
>>19441711

>>19445039
It's always shitty anime pics they decide on too. I wish I could take a mallet to their heads.

>>19441035
I started reading it today

WHAT THE FUCK, was it really written in 1995?

>147. To start with, there are the techniques of surveillance. Hidden video cameras are now used in most stores and in many other places, computers are used to collect and process vast amounts of information about individuals. Information so obtained greatly increases the effectiveness of physical coercion (i.e., law enforcement). Then there are the methods of propaganda, for which the mass communication media provide effective vehicles. Efficient techniques have been developed for winning elections, selling products, influencing public opinion. The entertainment industry serves as an important psychological tool of the system, possibly even when it is dishing out large amounts of sex and violence. Entertainment provides modern man with an essential means of escape. While absorbed in television, videos, etc., he can forget stress, anxiety, frustration, dissatisfaction. Many primitive peoples, when they don’t have work to do, are quite content to sit for hours at a time doing nothing at all, because they are at peace with themselves and their world. But most modern people must be constantly occupied or entertained, otherwise they get “bored,” i.e., they get fidgety, uneasy, irritable.


This motherfucker knew about data harvest when it was almost not a thing. He talks about videos as if things that are even more potent than television (social media, youtube) was predictable for him


Seriously...

>>19445532
>155. Our society tends to regard as a “sickness” any mode of thought or behavior that is inconvenient for the system, and this is plausible because when an individual doesn’t fit into the system it causes pain to the individual as well as problems for the system. Thus the manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system is seen as a “cure” for a “sickness” and therefore as good.

Stuff them up with medicine and let'em work as a mindless drone

>>19441117
thats his point you drooling retard
>>19445532
dude was really prescient on a lot of things

>>19441117
He talked about this already

>134. For all of the foregoing reasons, technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom. But this statement requires an important qualification. It appears that during the next several decades the industrial-technological system will be undergoing severe stresses due to economic and environmental problems, and especially due to problems of human behavior (alienation, rebellion, hostility, a variety of social and psychological difficulties). We hope that the stresses through which the system is likely to pass will cause it to break down, or at least will weaken it sufficiently so that a revolution against it becomes possible. If such a revolution occurs and is successful, then at that particular moment the aspiration for freedom will have proved more powerful than technology.

He urges us to use this moment of oportunity to halt industrial society

>>19445459
Kys tranny freak. Feeling oppressed?? Lmao

I'm shocked. I thought this manifesto would be Schizoposting but he articulates it really well.

>157. Assuming that industrial society survives, it is likely that technology will eventually acquire something approaching complete control over human behavior. It has been established beyond any rational doubt that human thought and behavior have a largely biological basis. As experimenters have demonstrated, feelings such as hunger, pleasure, anger and fear can be turned on and off by electrical stimulation of appropriate parts of the brain. Memories can be destroyed by damaging parts of the brain or they can be brought to the surface by electrical stimulation. Hallucinations can be induced or moods changed by drugs. There may or may not be an immaterial human soul, but if there is one it clearly is less powerful that the biological mechanisms of human behavior. For if that were not the case then researchers would not be able so easily to manipulate human feelings and behavior with drugs and electrical currents.

>158. It presumably would be impractical for all people to have electrodes inserted in their heads so that they could be controlled by the authorities. But the fact that human thoughts and feelings are so open to biological intervention shows that the problem of controlling human behavior is mainly a technical problem; a problem of neurons, hormones and complex molecules; the kind of problem that is accessible to scientific attack. Given the outstanding record of our society in solving technical problems, it is overwhelmingly probable that great advances will be made in the control of human behavior.

>159. Will public resistance prevent the introduction of technological control of human behavior? It certainly would if an attempt were made to introduce such control all at once. But since technological control will be introduced through a long sequence of small advances, there will be no rational and effective public resistance. (See paragraphs 127, 132, 153.)

>160. To those who think that all this sounds like science fiction, we point out that yesterday’s science fiction is today’s fact. The Industrial Revolution has radically altered man’s environment and way of life, and it is only to be expected that as technology is increasingly applied to the human body and mind, man himself will be altered as radically as his environment and way of life have been.

>>19445459
Based.
Don't mess with Texas.
God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
Remember the Alamo while you seethe and cope.

>>19445735
>163. Suppose the system survives the crisis of the next several decades. By that time it will have to have solved, or at least brought under control, the principal problems that confront it, in particular that of “socializing” human beings; that is, making people sufficiently docile so that heir behavior no longer threatens the system. That being accomplished, it does not appear that there would be any further obstacle to the development of technology, and it would presumably advance toward its logical conclusion, which is complete control over everything on Earth, including human beings and all other important organisms. The system may become a unitary, monolithic organization, or it may be more or less fragmented and consist of a number of organizations coexisting in a relationship that includes elements of both cooperation and competition, just as today the government, the corporations and other large organizations both cooperate and compete with one another. Human freedom mostly will have vanished, because individuals and small groups will be impotent vis-a-vis large organizations armed with supertechnology and an arsenal of advanced psychological and biological tools for manipulating human beings, besides instruments of surveillance and physical coercion. Only a small number of people will have any real power, and even these probably will have only very limited freedom, because their behavior too will be regulated; just as today our politicians and corporation executives can retain their positions of power only as long as their behavior remains within certain fairly narrow limits.

Social media proved to be a form of keeping us docile during this transition.
Normies on surface gazing at their echo chambers.
But it's already a decade and a half (or so( and people are get uneasy with this Social Media tech. They will soon come with something more enticing.

More and more we see that the number of billionaires are getting stable as the average living standards of the untrained worker plummets. "Professions" like online food order delivery and Uber driver proves that work condition and salaries are deteriorating.

>>19441035
>I love his writing, but I'm uncomfortable with the fact he's bombed and killed others.
You wouldn't be reading it if he didn't do it, and that's the point.

>>19442150
Debord is based

>>19443871
They had no resources on their shitty little island, why would they?

When someone tells me they like Ted K I immediately dismiss them as halfwits. There's a nearly 100 year old tradition of saying everything he has said but more rigorously researched and systematized - the only reason you virgin faggots like him is because he's le based deranged man + he explains in 5th grader's English why modernity has problems. Read a fucking book you niggers.

I cannot respect Ted because he is willing to let billions die only because his psychological needs aren't met
He even flat out admits that technological society could manage to meet these needs eventually, but it wouldn't be "dignifying".

In my opinion, his anti-technological stance is a form of escapism, as he believes he would find true meaning in a pre-industrial society.
In reality, he would be unlikely to live to see the age of 10 in such a society, statistically speaking.

>>19441035
Yes and Yes.

haven't read his stuff
what are his end goals, if he has any?
we all return to pre-industrial society and then what?

>>19447903
I've read the manifesto yesterday and I can say is: it's not clear.

He certainly has a nice criticism there, but offers no solution.
He rants against communism and propose some sort of anarchism, but one anarchism independent of technology. For the more we produce tech, more we depend on it.

I heard he wrote an essay against AnPrims, so I am not sure.

>>19441678
>That would also probably require that everyone "give up" something in return, so conservatives would have to cease oppression so others are not denied their pleasure and treat people with respect while the LGBTQ side would have to give up waving their banner and otherwise provoking the conservative impulse.
Your childish utopian shit is a joke. Political queerness is the point. It is a jihadist religion.
>“Religion always leads to rhetorical despotism,” Leto said. “Before the Bene Gesserit, the Jesuits were the best at it...Of course, they do not begin by deluding themselves with it...It leads to self-fulfilling prophecy and justifications for all manner of obscenities...It shields evil behind walls of self-righteousness which are proof against all arguments against the evil...It feeds on deliberately twisted meanings to discredit opposition...The Jesuits called that ‘securing your power base.’ It leads directly to hypocrisy which is always betrayed by the gap between actions and explanations. They never agree...Ultimately, it rules by guilt because hypocrisy brings on the witch hunt and the demand for scapegoats...Power bases are very dangerous because they attract people who are truly insane, people who seek power only for the sake of power. Do you understand?”
(((Diversity, inclusion, equity, racism, speech is violence, silence is violence, transwomen are women, straight white men are the biggest threat to America.)))
To not 'wave the banner' is to renounce coercive power, which alphabet people will not do willingly. Casting out the 'politically queer' is an act of self-preservation. It is an abuse of language to call it oppression; you might as well say that criminals are 'oppressed' when they are punished for knowingly breaking the law.

>>19447748
>he explains in 5th grader's English why modernity has problems
How is that a bad thing you elitist double nigger
>Read a fucking book you niggers
It is a fucking book

>>19447748
When someone tells me they dislike TK I immediately dismiss them as midwit academics who must cling onto approved thinkers to reassert their social worth. There's a nearly 100 year old tradition talking about this in a rigorously researched and systemized way. Take Bourdieu for example, take Debord. Fuck off you self important petit bourgeois elitist. You're not interested in the struggle if the only complain you have is trivial urbanite bullshit such as whether or not his writing is high brow enough for your pretentious clique of neutered academics.

Clearly you haven't even understood the basis of political materialism. Ponder this next time you're taking a shit: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."

grosse merde, tu trompes personne mdr tous les mouvements radicaux d'ajd s'inspirent directement de kaczynski faudrait avoir quitter sa chambre ou son université d'anglo de merde pour le savoir. ta clique de fiotte domestiqué n'a aucune pertinence, aucune emprise concrète sur le réel au delà de la reproduction éternel des intérêts de ta classe.

>>19447861
I assume you cannot respect an animal whose behavior is caused by its needs not being met? A caged animal harming the zoo employee is morally wrong?

Hypocritical urbanite idealist, you are so ideologically removed from reality you failed to see the glaring incoherence of your moralism.

>his anti-tech stance is a form of escapism
nothing says escapism like radical materialism and pure strategy, right? Lenin the escapist. Also your statistics is plain wrong, I suggest you read Kaczynski's works on primitivism, which is grounded on actual statistics, simultaneously dismantling the romanticization of primitivism and its ideological counterpart that is built upon no argumentation beyond old = bad.

>I cannot respect a man actualizing his will
We get it, you're domesticated and the only values worth exalting are those related to domestication.