/lit/ - Literature

Bruh, honest question... why are you using the internet if you are against tech?

>>21660416
>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. [...]
Did you think spears would blow up a substation or train?

>>21660405
>The Anti-Tech Logo explained.
The logo is the conjoining of the letter A and the letter T standing for Anti-Tech, they are fashioned like a pine tree. The reversed double brackets represents that this movement cannot be cointained within the Behemoth system.

Every major movement of dissent has a logo (hammer and sickle for commies, A in a circle for anarchists, swastika for nazis, etc) we should not be different and we need a symbol that can be easily reproduced, doodled, graffited etc.
Send your renditions.

>>21660416
>slaves are hypocrites for protesting slavery
>communists shouldn't use guns made under capitalism for their revolution

>>21660416
for the same reasons a commie uses money to finance their parties.

Are there any good anti-tech podcasts? Easier to spread to people than trying to get them to read.

>>21660425
No, but it seems to me that you tech-troglodytes are going to have to invest yourselves into more tech since your enemies far surpass you in that regard, and in the end you will have to become just like them—or perhaps worse than them. You will have to become like them in reasoning, in outlook and in overall depth.
"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."

>>21660405
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
>Mors Kochanski "Bushcraft". An essential beginner's guide for those who want to go Ted K.
https://www.libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=A1E8E6457DC0C9B1E34495B3D7613A88
>BOY SCOUTS' HANDBOOK
https://archive.org/details/officialboyscout71967boys/mode/2up
>KURT SAXON "Poor Man's James Bond", for those who wants to do some mischief (proceed with caution)
https://www.libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=4EC354975F6A0C53607AFF6864984634

ANTI-TECH COMFY
>FOREST ANON
https://www.youtube.com/@ForestAnon

>THE THULEAN PERSPECTIVE ARCHIVE
https://archive.org/details/thulean-perspective-archive/2013/2013-04-24+-+_From+ForeBears_+%5BASefHYjXx98%5D+%5B135%5D+%5B140%5D.mp4

>>21660446
Hermitix has many good episodes on Ted K.
Another one called "The Anti-Tech Collective" is good too.
Another one called Breaking Down: Collapse talks about the vulnerabilities of the system and how to prevent them. Well, we don't want to prevent those, but it is good to know vulnerabilities.

>>21660473

>>21660308
>>21660438
Well, those who already live in hunter-gatherer, nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyles will continue their business as usual. (unless the people from the cities really invade their environment, but I find unlikely in certain cases since they live in hard-to-reach enviroments, such as the african savannah, places deep within the amazon rainforest or steppes)
The collapse will be a boon for them, since they will live on as nothing ever happened and be free from threats. (see the quicksilver poisoning of the Amazonian rivers, a genocide of indians that is happening right now. It will all be gone once the system crumbles)

>>21660468
Yes. That's the way it goes. Sitting in the forest like idiots while the Leviathan swallows the forest whole is even more retarded though, you braindead normalfaggot.

>>21660473
btw, if someone can get a hold of all the Poor Man's James Bond editions, I'll be glad. I plan to put all these resources in a single mega folder.

There is a difference between being anti-tech and disliking the overwhelming presence of technology and mass entertainment in our day to day lives and being critical of it both theoretically and in practice.
I think most of us fall in the second category even if the first position is where most of the theory comes from.

>>21660485
Much obliged

>>21660502
The North Sentinelese might not even notice the collapse of global industrial civilisation.

Do any of you engage in any prepper tier behaviour? I feel like I'm too domesticated to survive any serious wronggoings so I'm just yoloing it up.

>>21660531
we indeed do, however you can't be naive enough to think the system could be reformed to stop and curb all of these things, also, with technology comes surveillance, replacement of workforce, massive wealth gap etc.
I would be happy if technology was used for noble reasons, but it's like the One Ring from Tolkien. You might feel tempted by the power of it, but you can't use it, the Ring only answer for Sauron as Technology only answers to Nihilism and whoever uses will be enslaved by it like poor Smeagol.
Therefore, it's best to cast the Ring in the mountain of doom.

>>21660504
You really haven't thought about this at all have you? It seems you are battling phantoms. Well whatever, I know your reveries will always be just that.

>>21660548
I actually don't, but recently I've been trying to learn some woodworking, rope handling and some basic stuff.
My goal is to purchase land where it is affordable and move there before I go bald. I'm seriously studying the possibility of moving to rural Moldova. Very affordable land.

This is all larp and simulation. You are not advancing your movement by creating stagnant generals and passing around copies of the foxfire books. You cherry-pick ATR but conveniently ignore the parts where he was talking about actual organization. Go outside.

More like schizo incel gang general. Lol

>>21660468
Doesn't really work like that in this case, except for maybe a brief period. If some movement would actually manage to topple industrial society they simply could not become like their predecessors/enemies since the material circumstances are simply not there anymore and will never be again. You can't reboot it without vast amounts of surface level fossil fuels.

>>21660562
>the movement gives a small step on /lit/
>people actually trying to produce pamphlets, design an icon, discuss the goals etc
>noooooooo you gotta public speakerino so you may not only attract attention of the FBI but also your local police

everything has its time

>>21660562
What if I am a peaceful man who likes to discuss this subject but has no interest in activism and organisation because I consider it futile, while also being aware that technological society will destroy itself anyway so there's no reason to do anything in the first place?

Bit of a crackpot hypothetical idea but what if a luddite state were formed and it had a nuclear deterrence? The nukes could also be used for EMP attacks.
Nukes act as a great equaliser to prevent attack from a technologically-superior country.
And if, hypothetically, an AI attacked the country with a robot army (it sounds like sci-fi but sci-fi is proving to come true sometimes), the EMP attacks via nukes could neuter the army for a time, and due to the technologically-inferior country’s non-reliance on electronics it would be much less affected.

>>21660607
No way for you to maintain nuke without an industrial system. Also a Luddite system would get Swiss cheesed by any semi professional modern army pretty quickly.
>INB4 taliban
Completely different situation and they got BTFO by Americans on the regular.

>>21660592
>while also being aware that technological society will destroy itself anyway so there's no reason to do anything in the first place?
actually you gotta go back to that section of The Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How where he speaks about why collapse needs to be accelerated. Among the reasons: environmental damage, another world war and the most scary of them all, geoengineering.

If the system continues progressing, it will start tampering with the environment permanently, in a way that the climate will be artificial and in the case of a collapse, climate will never heal itself because we inserted a lot of junk in our stratosphere and oceans trying to control its ecological cycles.

It's already happening and yes, it is concerning
Check out what happened in mexico recently:

>https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/24/1066041/a-startup-says-its-begun-releasing-particles-into-the-atmosphere-in-an-effort-to-tweak-the-climate/

>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/02/11/climate-change-activist-goes-rogue-releasing-mini-volcanoes/

>https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/01/20/1067146/what-mexicos-planned-geoengineering-restrictions-mean-for-the-future-of-the-field/

>https://www.climatechangenews.com/2023/01/18/mexico-plans-to-ban-solar-geoengineering-after-rogue-experiment/

>>21660625
Id environmental damage grows more and more likely to be permanent the more time given to it, how would accelerating its collapse do anything other than make it worse? It’s like rushing a bad chef.

>>21660625
btw, read it in order since it is dramatically impressive how things work

>MIT news praises this Luke Iseman guy for coming with a cook plan to spray shit in the stratosphere
>dude is doing it in Baja California, Mexico, he is an american and started experiments without consulting that country
>he is doing it after the white house said it is a great idea, coincidence
>last month, Mexico discovered they were doing it in their country and attempt to ban

we know the US gov is probably behind it, and they chose mexico because they didn't want to try it in the US soil, knowing shit might be harmful.

>>21660636
I meant the collapse of the technological system, not the collapse of the environment.
we need to do it in order to PREVENT a worse damage.

>>21660405
My favorite general on lit in long time.

MAY DEATH COME TO THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OHIO CHEMICAL DISASTER!!!

I weep for the people, animals and land hurt in the incident.

>>21660646
I understood what you mean. My point is that, wouldn’t attempting to destroy industrial society through sabotage create problems in and of itself? Regardless, this is all speculation, as I see no reasonable way out except forward. We let the parasites worm themselves so deep into the host body that trying to rip them out might kill it outright.

>>21660654
It's very sad and we don't even know how bad things may be, if it wasn't locals from Ohio showing the wildlife impacts online, I think think the US gov would cover-up the serious consequences in mainstream media.
If concerning people could do a protest in Ohio exposing our Anti-Tech sentiments, I think we could raise a lot of awareness of our movement.

It's disheartening indeed. It's one of those things that make me want not stay with arms crossed.

>>21660625
“Kill it before it does more damage” is a fair perspective, however I would still not believe we would be capable of it. I think industrial society must burn itself out like a wildfire or a locust plague.

Also, there is something in to consider in the opposite of this perspective: the longer the industrial system is allowed to go on, the more resources it frivolously squanders and the more damage it does to the things it itself needs, the less likely it is to ever manage to rise again after a collapse. A thoroughly stripped world might be a morbid benefit in some ways.

>>21660625
The earth has come back from some pretty ridiculous shit if you /trustthescience/. I find it hard to believe the industrialists could do enough damage here to completely render it dead like Mars.

>>21660699
The earth will always repair it self. When they can do is make it inhospitable for people and animals.

>>21660695
I agree with you in parts. If you are skeptical we can actually do some real damage to cripple the system (I think we can if you get organized), then I at least humbly beg you to raise the intellectual side of the movement by spreading awareness.

This is what you can do:
>spread ideas of the movement in the academia, high schools, trade unions, anarchist groups etc. just help the movement to be acknowledged.
>help us to pick and spread a symbol like I proposed in >>21660431 (see op pic), you could stick it up in some places, wear in a shirt etc
>use your creativity to speak about these concerns in any kind of art you may know, such as music, writing, painting etc.

we really need people doing things, I am not asking you to get an AR-15 and shoot a power station or burning a fertilizer silo, just talk about it, spread it, convey it all into a symbol too.

>>21660699
>>21660705
cockroaches and trees will survive
now, when it comes to mammals, birds and fishes... well, that's the point, my friend

>>21660575
>If some movement would actually manage to topple industrial society they simply could not become like their predecessors/enemies
You still don't understand. There won't be a society left. As >>21660425 said,
>Did you think spears would blow up a substation or train?
What you are effectively desiring is war, a world war. Did you think blowing up subway stations or trains would stop technological society? What you're trying to blow up is the world. You don't have the surveillance, intelligence, or wherewithal to even begin to larp about such enterprises.

Realistically, movements like these cannot work on what truly must be done (violent shit). By simply posting it on /lit/, it’s compromised. However, we can definitely use this as a springboard for mass, nonviolent appeal. Propaganda (zoomers are EXTREMELY easily manipulated by edits online), core lit, maybe somebody could even teach the basics of survival and organize local excursions. But, for the hard and nasty work, you have to stay small, disciplined, and EXTREMELY LOCAL. No more than a cell of perhaps 5 very close people who live very close together, and keep most communication offline. If you could have a public nonviolent org while having small cells like these razing the system, we could make real progress. This is of course all LARP, but it’s a fun hypothetical.

>>21660715
I’m fatalistic enough about it that I don’t even believe spreading the word makes any difference on a meaningful scale, but I’m glad to inform you that I mouth off about this stuff all over the place regardless of this.

I guess my views on industrial society and collapse are almost Landian, but instead of thinking the feedback loops in place are inevitably heading for the singularity I think they’re inevitably heading for collapse. I don’t think human agency has the capacity to turn this planetary scale process around, for better or for worse. We’re all trapped in a certain incentive structure on a civilisational scale in the meanwhile, until that incentive structure falls apart.

>>21660742
I don’t want to do those things and I agree with you on their impossibility, just pointing out that “you will just become the people you hate” argument doesn’t work for Luddites like it does with, say, communists. Because in the (extremely unlikely and hypothetical) case the Luddites would manage to pull it off, there simply wouldn’t the resources left to act like their former enemies.

>>21660744
I cannot stress enough the importance of a symbol for memetic spread of the movement.

You look upon a cross, you see Christianity.
A crescent moon, Islam.
A six pointed star, le Jews.
Hammer and Sickle, Communists.
Swastika, le Nazis.

We need an icon.

We can organize locally as much as we want, but a symbol can identify the movement enthusiasts, active cells, as much as it's useful in public demonstrations.

Let's focus on this. First things first.

>>21660814
Why not just use the pine tree? Consume what’s left of Ma’s movement, free emoji for signaling, easily recognizable, etc.

>>21660822
this, pine tree emoji goes hard and also looks inconspicuous to those not in the know which makes it an inside thing and inside things are cool and ironically spread widely, like slang

>>21660822
Well, I thought of that.
The pine tree is an emoji. Add reverse brackets because the emoji alone can mean many things.
>)) :pinetree: ((
But I also suggested that in the case of graffiti tagging, it could be using the letters AT so it will not be mistaken by a mere tree.

Just took a screenshot on how it would look on text.

>Ma's movement
The problem is that the Pine Tree Flag ("an appeal to heaven") already have a solid historical meaning. The AT pine tree would be something new.

But I can't do this decision on my own unless others adhere, otherwise I'll be a douchebag trying to force a stupid meme that will never go out of /lit/
So, if everyone agrees and no one subjects, the "AT Pine Tree" is our symbol.
Those in favour say Yea. Those against it say Nay AND propose a new design.

>>21660858
Screenshot didn't go through.

Depends on your feelings towards Cornel Aeronautics desu

>>21660858
Imo brackets look ugly and make the thing too convoluted, it needs to be simple, striking and easily recognisable. Maybe you can make a highly stylized tree, like stealing picrel.

>>21660880
I’d probably ditch the top > for simplicity

I see technology as a behemoth lurking in the background of history. Geniuses, in search of honour and prestige, allowed it to grow. It now takes the forefront, and says “your side of the deal is over, and now it’s time for mine”.

An appeal to heaven

>>21660405
How far anti-tech are anti-tech fags?
Metal working, agriculture?
The paleolithic?
What's the limit?

>>21661149
Could inner (and outer) papua new guinea before globalization truly got to it be a model you people would follow?
The precolumbian americas outside the main hibs of civilization?
Pre colonial africa?

>https://www.newsweek.com/unabomber-incel-evidence-james-fitzgerald-profiler-ted-kaczynski-1775514

>>21660858
It should suffice

>>21660405
Anti-Tech is the new libertarianism but far less useless

>>21660858
What about with pointy brackets (or when lacking, greater-less than signs) instead of parentheses?

>>:pine:<<

)) (( Looks like it means some kind of 'reverse Jew' or something, the negajew

Anyway, here's a bindrune of aesch and tiwaz, the æ and t runes

>>21660880
>>21661517
>Brackets
Why wouldn't I ditch the brackets? Because it would amplify the meaning and the symbol wouldn't be mistaken to something else.
>Negajew
Well, the goal is certainly not wanting to be anti-Semitic, but appropriating the concept and repurposing it. I thought of it after I saw Varg twitting "))permaculture ((". I believe the reversed brackets could mean "not contained by the system" and would add something that would make the symbol unique and unmistakable.
It's up to you guys use it or not, I'll keep using it, especially for emoji purposes.

But I'm glad we already settled in the pine tree, it's a good leap. Think of the Christian cross, you have a number of variations (see pic related). The most simple and basic is the latin cross, although all of them represents Christianity.
So we might have variations of the pine icon, but all of them represents our Anti-Tech goals.

>>21660880
It looks really good, my only criticism is that it somewhat looks like an up arrow. I'm gonna save it.

>>21661517
I actually thought of it, I'm not very knowledgeable of Nordic runes. The only reason I did not choose is because it could be unpopular with *ahem* non-aryans. But in any case, I think it's a valid system and should be saved as a variation. I'm gonna save it as well and use it since I like these kind of things.

>>21661149
That's what I proposed in the OP.
For me, it should suffice a simple stabilization to any pre-industrial level of development.

Both Mumford and Kaczynski differentiates kinds of tech. I will not look into the text now for it right now but basic there are two types: 1. Technics that can be produced autonomously or by a small group of people, such as woodworking, metal casting (in case resources are plentiful), agriculture etc.(eg. tools, cloth, tanning etc) 2. Technics that require a complex system of people and resources, such as industrial goods and high tech (eg. electronics, cars, power grids etc)

I see nothing wrong with the first, as the latter is what the system is all about.

Considering that even cooking and firemaking is considered a technique, we are not to dismiss it and go back to eat raw meat.

What a larp you absolute faggots

>>21660416
Shut up, slave of social media! I am superior than you!

>>21660814
>>21660822
>>21660858
>>21660861
>>21660861
>>21660880
>>21661517
>>21661773
Now that we agreed upon the symbol. I would suggest a motto too.
>Why mottos even matter?
Every revolution has a motto that conveys the whole of the movement in a single phrase.
>Christ chose the motto "Love God above all things and your neighbor like yourself" to make the whole of the law.
>Muhammad came up with the Shahadah as a motto for Islam ("there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is its prophet")
>The American revolution had a motto that was a demand "No taxation without representation"
>The French Revolution had the three concepts as a motto: "Libertity, Fraternity and Equality"
>Lincoln created a motto in his Gettisburg Address with the words "By the people, from the people, to the people"
>Lenin during the Russian Revolution also had a threefold motto: "peace, land and bread"
>Italian fascists had the motto "ne me frego" which means "I don't give a damn"

And so it goes on and on.

A motto has to be original too, easy to remember, it shouldn't be long m, easy to translate and easy for people to identify with it.

My bid: WILD HEARTS ARE NOT TO BE TAMED. Or perhaps WILD HEARTS CANNOT BE TAMED.

>>21660405
you guys know you wont get laid without an iphone and instagram account rihgt?

>>21661840
Modern sexuality is a surrogate activity. Polygamy is a psy-op.

I only need to sleep with my gf and no one else.

>>21661840
>le…SEX!

>>21661840
>tfw gotten laid over my absence of smartphone being a conversation piece

find better grills

>>21661830
Another motto I thought of: "IT'S ONLY NATURAL TO REVOLT"
Since it's a pun on the word natural

>>21660531
The problem is you cannot have only the good stuff, so to speak, and if you see that you see the two groups are really one. It's not immediately obvious that technique is a sort of all or nothing deal because, on an individual level, it's not. For example, I don't use a smartphone. QED the individual can avoid technology if he wants, right?
However, it's on the mass level that you can see the forcing nature of it. I don't have a smartphone, and for how long is that viable? I do have a computer, and a regular phone because I have to in order to participate in society, I couldn't get the job I have (which is not high skill) or study the course I do without those. If you think about it you'll come up with innumerable examples just like that and if you think about it on the mass scale (you probably already know these ones though) you see that it applies to states and nations also, all the way from military technique in modern arms races back to being forced to adopt high calorie output farming to compete with the tribe across the river.

The real problem is that everyone has a different point where they think
>This has gone too far
For most people they're fine with telephones, cars, guns and so on so they let it get this far. Some saw the steam engine or loom and decided that was their point past which they didn't want to tolerate technology, but the majority preferred to continue and like that, resistance to technological progress has been too fragmented to accomplish much.
I think today we're seeing the number of people who think it's gone too far increase quite a bit, when you see your kids glued to a phone 24/7 it's a lot more in your face that something isn't right, but again it's too fragmented, because everyone already accepted the technology we'd developed up till this point without question, and now they reap the rewards, which is further >progress whether they like it or not.

>disliking the overwhelming presence of technology and mass entertainment in our day to day lives and being critical of it both theoretically and in practice
Is a very agreeable position, but there is a straight line from the steam engine to brain stem microchips and you can't accept one without inevitably inflicting the other on your descendants. It's not any actual technology, its the technical mindset.

>>21661830
Not suggesting it as something we should necessarily adopt because it's pretty wordy but
>The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race
has a head start on already being iconic and fairly well known.

>>21662029
>>21661830

>>21662029
Of course I thought of it and this is a very well stablished motto that will certainly be used when we go outside, I can see it on banners and so forth. (I personally will do movement outside, but first things first)
I'm sticking to >>21661935 and I'll work on a vector img for it. (right now I can't, at work)
Next week I'll start graffiting my neighbourhood area just to exemplify what I am trying to achieve.

>>21661975
>The real problem is that everyone has a different point where they think this has gone too far
Indeed and normies/midwits are highly adaptable owing to their neurotypicality and to their complacency
By the time a normie falls off the bandwagon they are often incensed, shocked, they can't believe this has happened, but find a welcome crowd who has been there long before

>>21661975
I relate to it because I am a late adopter of smartphones, I bought my first in 2018 for work reasons. It was something I never cared about that I was forced to accept in order to not be unemployed. I can't have a regular phone since my work demands me be connected to Whatsapp, which is not possible to use in a computer alone.
Ted K talks about it when he mentions roads and cars, and how cars begat roads and the existence of roads begat suburbs, which made cars (or public transportation) inevitable. In most places you can't simply live without driving, taking a tram or a bus.
As Henry Ford said, if he asked the common american what he needed for transportation, the american would say "a faster horse". In a way the system conditions us to accept technology, my fear is that one day not having tech such as your Meta googles and Elon's chip will not be an option, but a demand to keep your job and salary.

>I think today we're seeing the number of people who think it's gone too far increase quite a bit, when you see your kids glued to a phone 24/7 it's a lot more in your face that something isn't right, but again it's too fragmented, because everyone already accepted the technology we'd developed up till this point without question, and now they reap the rewards, which is further progress whether they like it or not.
They were born with this tech. They can't imagine a world before it, just as the boomers cannot imagine a world before cars.
Each technical leap shapes the very fabric of reality and people's relations to each other. The system never stops.

Your greivances are minor compared to what the consequences of getting rid of technology (up to whatever arbitrary point in history you want to regress to) would look like; an innumerable amount of people would have to die. If you aren't coming from the angle of childishly think that is "based", you have not a single cubic inch of moral ground to stand on.

>>21662085
>my fear is that one day not having tech such as your Meta googles and Elon's chip will not be an option, but a demand to keep your job and salary.
Almost certainly, although its never phrased as an actual demand. It will always just be suggested, very strongly, and you won't really be able to function without it, unless you are in a unique situation - born very wealthy, you live with someone who will take the hit for you etc.

>They were born with this tech. They can't imagine a world before it, just as the boomers cannot imagine a world before cars.
I was about to write a post exactly about this. When people don't learn about the past (studying history or otherwise) they never really get a handle on perspective of the current time, and that applies to all "current times" throughout history. Cars are pretty unnatural and phones are even far worse but everyone who grew up with them has to make a conscious effort to see that, although once you do see it you can't really unsee it.
Maybe cars and phones are sort of passe observations there but even things like printed books, mass education or electric lights ffs seem extremely unnatural to me the more I have to think about them. The worst thing being, people never really push back on you if it's brought up, even if they disagree, which can only be because they either can't think why it's wrong but go with it anyway, or they've just never thought about it seriously. Either option is pretty bad considering how dominant it is in everyone's life.

>>21662129
>Your greivances are minor compared to what the consequences of getting rid of technology (up to whatever arbitrary point in history you want to regress to) would look like; an innumerable amount of people would have to die. If you aren't coming from the angle of childishly think that is "based", you have not a single cubic inch of moral ground to stand on.

>>21660405
there is absolutely no way this thread isn't some sort of spook farm

>>21662129
Our current society will crumble, we already discussed on other threads and there are many reasons to expect a catabolic collapse.
Billions will live in precarious lifes when it happens, and the more the system lives, more the population will increase and more people will be met the perils of collapse.

Accelerating the fall will be a huge sacrifice, but on the bright side, it will save a couple of generations that are schedule to born in the worst crisis ever seen by mankind.

>>21662156
nah ;)
just participate

I'm interested in what I think are the arguments from the anti-tech side and on the other hand what could generally be called the religious/metaphysical/"traditional" side; although in general the first seem to come from very materialistic views, I think there's still much room to essentially see in tech two sides of the same coin, i.e one side descriptively addressing the tech issue whereas the other side comes to it for example from an eschatological point of view about the future and telos of man and the plan of the "king of this world". To me "tech" as often described by the former really seem to have a fatal demonic reality to it from the religious point of view, especially since its predicated on a sort of pervasive and always on the move sub-conscious element which is brought to attention all the time when the former describe the impossibility to truly rationally control technical developments and put a yoke on it, extracting only the good and keeping the bad at bay.
I wonder if we will see a synthesis in the medium term. Some may consider the Amish to be such an example though I'm not sure from which angle exactly they reject tech and if they are conscious about it or it's more like an accidental rejection coming from other preoccupations.

Friendly reminder that is is your duty to collect as much welfare and benefits as possible to be dead weight that strains the system. Parasitism is a virtue when the host is evil. Work refusal is activism.

>>21660742
Industrial society is a machine that is prone to cascading collapse. Destruction of one essential component can spiral into destruction of the entire system. Unfortunately, areas that are so integral for the survival of the system, like Taiwan's TSMC or the Panama Canal are covered in shitloads of military and security installations. Just out of curiosity, you can check Taiwan on satellite and it's basically one giant military base. Anywhere near a TSMC building is surrounded by "mysterious graphical artifacts", blurred spots, and plain-and-simple military installations.
It's heavily defended because control of Taiwan is essential for whatever government plans to still have functioning industrial infrastructure, but it must also be protectes by necessity. Any strike from China or the US would result in a mutual catastrophe, so while the US has control "on paper", the real master of Taiwan is industrial society as a whole.
Of course, China and the West are funding attempts to become independent of TSMC: The US is funding a chip-fab in Europe and China is poaching TSMC engineers to fund their own, but right now Taiwan is an example of an easily identifiable critical peace of infrastructure that the destruction of which would result in global catastrophe.

>>21662203
Well, since the anti-tech movement has a negative nature (it is the opposition of something), the positive affirmations within the movement are plural, may vary and should never be ahead of the goal.
Yes, it is true that TK is a very materialist thinker and people who are fond of him tend to be the same.

In a Christian point of view, we can see that we are protecting life. In Genesis, we can see that when God created all things in nature, he looked upon them and saw that they are good. Therefore nature is good for the Christian, and the destruction and depredation of it is nothing but sin. (enviromental exploitation above the limits of our needs is directly correlated to greed, for example)
We have example of Christians contemplating nature, most visibly St. John the Baptist in the wilderness, the early hermit monks who preferred to find their inspiration to worship while alone in nature, St. Francis Assisi and his love for wild animals, St. Hubert's vision of the Cross in the antlers of a stag etc. There are many traditions.
The Amish is a great example of practical "Christian Ecology" since they do not exploit nature in order to obtain greed and try to keep their labour curbed by their actual needs.

The idea of tech being demonic can be applied, since tech is indeed empowering those who fill the world with sin. You need to be very naive to imagine they are doing all this pillaging of nature in order to improve the life of "thy neighbor"

Beyond a Christian point of view, some anti-tech thinkers had their ideas. David Skrbina is right now working with panpsychism, he has an odd correlation of these metaphysics to his AT ideas.
Meanwhile, we obviously know guys like Varg Vikernes that has a very pagan view of nature and its reality.

So, there isn't an official "anti-tech" stance towards it, our stance is to break down the system. But there are many people talking about the metaphysics of nature.

>>21662153
>just like in my movies!
>>21662165
So basically "society" *might* collapse in the future so we should definitely cause it to collapse sooner? You don't know how it might collapse either; I highly doubt it would be total regression to a preindustrial stage, or even involve as many deaths or suffering as what your alternative would cause.
>more the population will increase and more people will met the perils of collapse
A funny point to make given the obvious political disposition of this thread. Most of those new people will be Africans. Both qualitatively and quantitatively the populations facing a collapse aren't that far apart. We are talking billions versus billions with a bell curve shifted slightly left.

>>21662270
The world economy actually hinges on a single Dutch company. People complain about the Jews but if you look into the eternal Dutchman throughout history you see that they basically are modernity.

https://youtu.be/7y9M_Wle2hE

This explains the monopoly well

>>21662332
>A Dutchman invents something useful and sells it
>The jew speculate and profit explicitly off peoples loss and misfortune

I cant understand why you aninals have been hated since before Christ. Fun fact, expulsion of jews from a nation is almost always followed by a cultural golden age and prosperous times.

>>21662314
>have you considered what the schizo fantasy racists in my head would have to say about that?

>>21662314
>So basically "society" *might* collapse in the future so we should definitely cause it to collapse sooner?
It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when. Even the neocon think tanks agree that the end is nigh.
>You don't know how it might collapse either; I highly doubt it would be total regression to a preindustrial stage, or even involve as many deaths or suffering as what your alternative would cause.
True, we don't know how. We don't know if it will be the collapse of industry or the deceleration of it. The thing is, that wars will be a consequence of deglobalism.
So many people will die or live indignities under the system.

>Most of those new people will be Africans
Which is terrible for the Africans who still live pastoral tribalism. Don't you think? They will suffer the most.
Halt globalization and Africa will be the first continent to stabilize, and how lucky they are for that!

I am not necessarily interested in a demolition of technology or the regression of innovation. I'm interested in raising awareness of the impacts of technology on the self and our culture. We just dump endless "innovation" into the larger environment without bothering to consider it's effects. We need to stop and consider what values are important to us, what's sustainable, and what kind of people we want to be. SLOW THE FUCK DOWN.

We're becoming shallower, more anxious, more hedonistic, more atomized, and more reactionary. The technological environments we have created have made us who we are.

The Internet isn't a thing in the environment. We live in the environment the Internet made possible.

Read McLuhan.

you should all workaway a biy

>>21663654
>We just dump endless "innovation" into the larger environment without bothering to consider it's effects.
Why do you think this happen?
I mean, it's not like it's intentional and thought through, that's why I agree with TK's ideas of "self-prop systems".

>We need to stop and consider what values are important to us, what's sustainable, and what kind of people we want to be. SLOW THE FUCK DOWN.
And what should we do then?

>We're becoming shallower, more anxious, more hedonistic, more atomized, and more reactionary. The technological environments we have created have made us who we are.
And yes, how should we do it? Like I said, it is clear that technology is a self-prop system and the system boosters will continue giving sustainance to it.

>The Internet isn't a thing in the environment. We live in the environment the Internet made possible.
Okay, but how do we fix things then?

>Read McLuhan.
It's on my list, I need to finish my throughout research of TK, Ellul et al.

But the thing is, what do you propose for us to do? Just understanding the system for the sake of understanding is morbid. It's the very meaning of surrogate activity.

Many people talked about the inevitability of these self prop systems to overeat and destroy their environments, despite the obvious irony that we are still nominally in control of these systems and at minimum the ppl ITT can see it coming

I'm not gonna pretend that humans are still mostly in control of these things and can prudently reverse them, but I will say it is a fact that we lost about a lemon size of brain matter from pre and post agricultural man in the last 12,000 years, an extremely short time in evolutionary scales and basically also coinciding with the birth of everything we call civilization and history

Evola was right, and we are in the merchant caste age of the kali yuga, next up: the shudras get their turn at the wheel

>>21662838
I find it incredibly dishonest that this gentleman supposed that we are not considering Africa. The fact is, the system is not that advanced in Africa, however Africa is rich in prime matter that the system needs, and exploitation of African people is a consequence of the system.
Sooner or later, the system will reach Africa and that would mean a terrible shift for the continent.

Since imperialism reached Africa, the most traditional communities of Africa are the ones who suffered the most. The nilotic people of the northeastern part were massacred by steel and policies, their lands were appropriated, their culture was attacked, their lifestyle is being held by a thread. Meanwhile, the bushmen of southern Africa are the ones who suffered the most with policies made by the whites as much as policies by the black themselves after the liberation of such regions. They no longer live as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists as much as before and their population is decreasing, many of them were forced to settle for agriculture.

The Anti-Tech movement is not against Africans, we are not concerned with the growing populations of Africa, we are concerned about the growing population in the world. Stop the system and Africa will stabilize first, since the system still doesn't have their hands around them.

So, the places that will suffer the most is certainly far-east asia, since they have a large population. They will be the ones with the larger problem, but the rest of the world will do better.

>>21664833
>Many people talked about the inevitability of these self prop systems to overeat and destroy their environments, despite the obvious irony that we are still nominally in control of these systems and at minimum the ppl ITT can see it coming
Who are "We"? I am not in control of any system.

>>21663654
>I'm interested in raising awareness of the impacts of technology on the self and our culture. [...] We need to stop and consider what values are important to us, what's sustainable, and what kind of people we want to be. SLOW THE FUCK DOWN.

I'll let Ted Kaczynski answer that.

>[T]here are those who are appalled at what technology is doing to our society and our planet, but are not motivated to take any action against the technological system because they feel helpless to accomplish anything in that direction. They read an anti-tech book-say, for example, Jacques Ellul's Technological Society-and it makes them feel better because they've found someone who has eloquently articulated their own anxieties about technology. But the effect soon wears off and their discomfort with the technological world begins to nag them again, so they turn for relief to another anti-tech book-Ivan Illich, Kirkpatrick Sale, Daniel Qyinn, my own Industrial Society and Its Future, or something else-and the cycle repeats itself. In other words, for these people anti-tech literature is merely a kind of therapy: It alleviates their discomfort with technology, but it does not serve them as a call to action.
Preface to ATR:WH

>>21663654
You would need a global authoritarian state to tame technological innovation, and even then people will secretly continue innovating because the gainz are just too tempting.

>>21664850
asian collapse will probably make every horrific event in human history so far look like nothing.

bump. Collapse is the only way to save the planet and humanity. A revolution to force collapse is our most logical course of action.

>>21665036
You really haven't read The Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How

>>21665049
I am no fan of Joe Rogan, but Zerzan was right in that interview where he says that China is not the future due this massive population and how unstable it makes for them. And I'm not even talking about places such as Indonesia and Japan.
Now, the Japanese are being smart by letting their elderly die, I have no idea what the Japs are cooking, but I bet they already figured out that their massive population will be their demise, so waiting for the elderly to die without making it easier to another baby boom and keeping immigrants at bay is in fact a clever move, since you can see that their goal is to keep the population under 100 million by 2040. They started a slow decline since 2010.

It will be costy, their public debt is already three times their GDP and might reach five or even ten times their GDP in the future. But I personally believe they know this sacrifice will pay.

>>21664879
you are obviously in basic control of your own system and can shift it however you see fit

>>21665096

>>21665097
>You really haven't read The Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How
I said tame it, not topple it. That anon was suggesting that we all collectively just have a good think and proceed cautiously.

A full blown Luddite revolution actually seems less implausible to me than the idea that industrial society will proceed wisely and cautiously and doesn't rush things.

>>21658987
>As much as I'm persuaded by anti-tech literature your writing style reminds me of genre fiction and you make it sound like some kind of utopic vision, or rather an idealized, psychological state where everything fits in place. Which is to say there's a certain optimistic naivety, complete with assumptions instilled by fictional narratives such as 28 Days Later.
>Perhaps at a meta level much of what you say would transpire, but that's not necessarily lacking among tight-knit social groups in our modern era. And that's assuming you or other /lit/ posters who bear witness to this thread survive the collapse.
>Is it possible to want the other side without telling ourselves that the grass will be greener?
What I wrote isn't really "genre fiction" -- look into pic related. Humans placed into survival scenarios with a handful of other people feel an unusual sense of meaning and purposefulness in their lives. Every combat veteran will tell you about this; that surreal sense of brotherhood which you cannot get anywhere else. So my description was Romantic, but I tell you, this actually happens. If a collapse does happen, it would be a nightmare, but I don't really mean I want to live through that scenario. What I mean is, if a collapse does happen, and it's not as bad as the film Threads, people will likely be happier than they ever were in modern society.

Is it any coincidence that Existentialism and man asking himself, "Does life really mean anything?" came at the same time that war became taboo? Maybe our ancestors weren't too ignorant to ask this question. Maybe they simply felt enough purpose out of life, that they didn't have to ask.

>>21665119
My criticism to what you said here (>>21665036) is that you are not considering the chapter one of ATRWH, especially pages 13-31 where he exemplifies that even an authoritarian state is powerless in attempts to control the system.

>>21665183
Well I said myself that even then it wouldn't work m8

>>21665097
John Zerzan was on Rogan?

>>21665207
A few days ago. It was interesting. Although he is a CIA shill (he admits that he is working with gov intel there), he dropped many interesting takes. Have it all with a grain of salt.

>>21660405
looks like a fucking radio tower lmao

>>21665213
Are you sure you're not getting the guest or the podcast wrong? I can't find it and Zerzan seems way to obscure for Rogan.

>>21665231
oops, I mistook Zerzan with Zeihan. Sorry bruh, it's late night here and I am working on a script as I'm writing.

>>21665207
>>21665213
zeihan

>>21664970
Ellul himself said he was merely observing the direction of the world, and did not particularly care about activism. What does an Anti-Tech movement hope to achieve? Terrorism won't take you anywhere, activism won't take you anywhere. Awareness? For what? No one is de-industrializing, forget it. You can save up & buy a homestead if you want.

But that's unsatisfying for an Anti-Tech person. Guys like Ted K. are unsatisfied with living in nature because they know it's under existential threat. And like all political movements, you can't just let things continue to go wrong and not act. Unless you're a mad scientist working on a global EMP, I would caution you guys not to devote too much time to Anti-Tech. Even if it's true, there's basically nothing you can do about it.

>>21665294
We will get something going, just hang out for now. Right now we are mainly focused on our logo

>>21665275
>>21665288
Kek, very different person but I get the confusion with the name. I listened to that too, it was interesting but he did seem overconfident and conveniently convinced that America will be fine and all its enemies will not be which is a great position to have as a book peddler who likes public speaking engagements.

His points about the fuckedness of China made a lot of sense though.

>>21665183
Doesn't (the venerable) Ted's whole argument basically rest on "whut if systems are like russell's paradox?"
what if, in fact, things are not that complicated/chaotic and really play out on identifiable patterns, albeit complex ones, like how they found out most leaves and flowers generate based on the golden ratio + certain initial conditions (genetic or whatever)
that would essentially mean we CAN steer systems from the inside with incomplete knowledge

even if it doesn't play out this time and we collapse, 1000 years in the future the same things might happen again when larpers on 4chan 2 try to recreate the great American empire and its Faustian drive or whatever
Ted shrugs this off as "Idk, we can't do nuffin about people in the future" which is probably true, but unhelpful to warn said people with

what I'm saying is, the whole Anti-Tech movement lacks a metaphysics for why tech is really bad / not inevitable and why humans (or even life) are special or good that isn't trumped by some kind of antinatalism

>>21665307
Like what? It would have to be on the scale of global terrorism. There's literally no other way to stop or even slow this down. You'd need to go full Deus Ex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCzitO446ZY

>>21665294
>What does an Anti-Tech movement hope to achieve?
The total obliteration of the technological society.

>Terrorism won't take you anywhere
Not if done unintentionally and by lone wolves. And this is not the time for it anyway, the time shall come.

>activism won't take you anywhere. Awareness? For what? No one is de-industrializing, forget it.
You can't start a movement without increasing the number of people commited to the cause. We need to raise awareness and adoption.

>You can save up & buy a homestead if you want.
Some of us will, some of us won't, each should follow his or her consciouness.

>But that's unsatisfying for an Anti-Tech person. Guys like Ted K. are unsatisfied with living in nature because they know it's under existential threat. And like all political movements, you can't just let things continue to go wrong and not act. Unless you're a mad scientist working on a global EMP, I would caution you guys not to devote too much time to Anti-Tech. Even if it's true, there's basically nothing you can do about it.
You think of an EMP superweapon because you have too much faith that the system is flawless. It is not, it is very fragile and things can fall in a domino effect.

>>21665319
Not him btw
I'm just not convinced enough elites would not see the coming danger and try to avert course

>>21660431
It looks like goatse bro

>>21665315
>what if, in fact, things are not that complicated/chaotic and really play out on identifiable patterns, albeit complex ones, like how they found out most leaves and flowers generate based on the golden ratio + certain initial conditions (genetic or whatever)
it is not what if, man, the system is complex to a point that not even a central government can get a hold of it. There are patterns, but you can't see the whole picture, since pattern identifying generate more patterns on itself. The act of contemplating a complex system is also generating more complexities ahead.

>1000 years in the future
who fucking cares about such distant future? it is absolutely unpredictable. but I guess history will look to our current times as a great deception, they may try to reproduce, but I guess they will know it was fucked up now and it will be fucked up then.

>>21665335
Well, if you're planning something big, just make sure you don't fuck up. You'll only get one real attempt.

>>21665336
>I'm just not convinced enough elites would not see the coming danger and try to avert course
they are trying to avert the course (see Davos! the Club of Rome!), but it's like I said in this post using a Tolkien analogy >>21660555 (I know analogies are reddit-tier, but bear with me)
The system is trying to make a change while they still want to keep what is causing their demise.
Isildur kept the ring even tho he was warned that the One Ring was far too dangerous, and even when it was more than visible that one could not use it for a prosperous goal, Boromir still felt snared by it.

What I mean is, they know things are rough and the system is about to collapse, they know that industrialization, consumerism and all the byproducts of technology is responsible for it, but since they are boosters of the system (and every booster is also dependent on whatever it boosts) they are addicted and bound to their precious technological system.
They can't avert collapse, even tho they want it.

>>21664804
To be honest, I'm not sure if anything can be done. It all has so much momentum. I'm not sure how intelligent people can enact big social changes without money or violence. Articulate speech falls on deaf ears. Attention spans are so shot that nobody would even be listening by the time we finish an argument. I don't have capital, and I'm not personally going to participate in violence.

For me, I want to understand for my own navigation and constructing my own personal media ecology. It's how I can personally change my media diet into something more healthy and balanced. I'm just hoping the technological question catches enough individual attention that smart people make changes in their own lives for the better.

McLuhan likes to reference Poe's short story "The Maelstrom". In a hopeless situation, when we're all circling the drain, you might as well seek amusement in studying the shit storm, so to speak. If you're lucky, you might just find something which floats, rather than sinks, and holding onto that for dear life. Paying close attention to one's environment is the best chance of saving oneself.

>>21665119
>Tame, not topple.

I like this expression.

>>21665368
It's like a game of chess, first you send the pawns. I won't say I am the King itself on the game, and I am not skilled enough as a Queen. But I am (as most of you guys are) useful as a horse, bishop or tower and it would be an idiotic move if I wasted one of these assets in the early stages of the game.
Let's see if we can get pawns by raising awareness.

>>21660800
>just pointing out that “you will just become the people you hate” argument doesn’t work for Luddites
>Because in the (extremely unlikely and hypothetical) case the Luddites would manage to pull it off, there simply wouldn’t be the resources left to act like their former enemies.
War progresses innovation. The current resources might be replaced with new resources. The war will not be ephemeral. I honestly imagine a 20-100 year war. If the war is around 5 years or less then that will be because the luddites lost.

>>21665384
>For me, I want to understand for my own navigation and constructing my own personal media ecology. It's how I can personally change my media diet into something more healthy and balanced.
This is a solved problem IMO. Use the internet like old people: Check /lit/ and other sites 1-2x a day. Main issue is sometimes you need to stay longer for discussion. I'd use 4chan X's thread watcher and other notification systems, have auto-refresh on and you won't miss anything. We should try to limit our time online, it's better spent reading or thinking or taking walks.

>>21660405
Yet you are on the internet. How curious.

Friendly reminder that if you really want to hurt industrial society your job is to allocate as many non-renewable resources towards frivolous pursuits instead of towards those necessary for saving the system. Squander the only supply of oil we will ever have. People going on cruises are doing more for collapse than homesteaders and shack dwellers ever will.

You may not like it, but this is what peak Luddite performance looks like.

>>21665384
>I'm not sure how intelligent people can enact big social changes without money or violence. Articulate speech falls on deaf ears.
Be patient, first things first. It might take years until the word gets out, but it will get out. That's why our current goal is describe these ideas in the most simple language possible.

>I'm not personally going to participate in violence.
Please, DO NOT. Indeed, you shouldn't and if you feel it is not for you, don't ever do it. But do the intellectual work.
I am trying to separate three levels of dissident action 1. Intellectual Action (what we are doing right now, the Gramscian groundwork) 2. Mischief Action (spreading the symbols and ideas through some attitudes) 3. Revolutionary Action (getting the hands dirty)
The third cannot be done with the first, the second stablishes the line between the second and the third. If you stick to the first, you are already a warrior.

>For me, I want to understand for my own navigation and constructing my own personal media ecology. It's how I can personally change my media diet into something more healthy and balanced. I'm just hoping the technological question catches enough individual attention that smart people make changes in their own lives for the better.
Yes, that's important. It's part of the intellectual action and can be inserted in the mischief action since going out of the system and building communities that want to leave the system is hurting the system in a small-scale.
e.g. Forest Anon is doing some mischief.

> In a hopeless situation, when we're all circling the drain, you might as well seek amusement in studying the shit storm, so to speak. If you're lucky, you might just find something which floats, rather than sinks, and holding onto that for dear life. Paying close attention to one's environment is the best chance of saving oneself.
I have nothing against this and I wish you the best success. You are not my enemy, you have my solidarity.

>>21665420
And you can't even read the first post in a thread. Can't read... on /lit/. How curious.

>>21660405
For those who are interested, here is the magazine with Forest Anon's interview. (they also have that nasty US power grid report)

https://ia601501.us.archive.org/20/items/garden-iss-2-v-2/GARDEN_ISS_2_v2.pdf

>>21665424
Just booked 10 tickets for Carnival cruise lines. Death to Moloch!

>>21665458
Based, don’t forget to hit the seafood buffet.

>>21661830
"Natura vincit omnia" or "Nature conquers all"; relatively dignified, unlike previous suggestions.

>>21665552
>Latin motto
Is this a university or a mass movement

Has anyone come up with rules a technology must pertain to so that it is acceptable? How does this technological filter work?

>>21665456
Great find and a great read. I spent months looking for this issue. It's so fucking sad that the only person he ever actually allowed to visit and stay at his cabin ended up passing away. I would have loved to be around for that.

Bump

>>21665424
based

>>21665741
Well, considering that the system will fall and we or anyone else won't have the power to steer what civilization will develop towards, I believe that it's not up to us to choose what is acceptable. It will be an organic process.

Well, Lewis Mumford talks about three phases of modern tech development
Eotechnic (from the year 1000-1700)
Paleotechnic (from 1700-1900)
Neotechnic (from 1900 to today)
For me, all these three phases are really bad. Eotechnic is most likely the beginning of modern science since it was then that the curiosity to explain the world has started and thus man started to quantify, qualify and categorize anything. For Lewis, the major creation of the Eotechnic Era was the clock that transformed time into something fungible.
As it's visible that paleotechnic (industrial tech) and neotechnic (current tech) is unacceptable, we must discuss whether eotechnic was acceptable.
Technics that concern social survival (firemaking, weaving, woodworking, metal working, agriculture etc.) shouldn't even be discussed since they will not disappear.

>>21660654
The worst environmental disaster in America and nobody is doing nothing.

And you know, the average leftist "environmentalist" will be mild enough to ask for more regulations think that will suffice. We should be more bold and ask the heads of the responsible for that in a plate.

I hope those around there will not be guilded enough to do nothing.

>>21666817
>We should be more bold and ask the heads of the responsible for that in a plate.
this is no more bold

>>21660405
This logo looks awful. The parentheses are also completely pointless and, worst of all, look bad.

>>21661149
The creation of mass communications and beyond.

>>21661773
>I thought of it after I saw Varg twitting "))permaculture ((
Ok, so that's the real reason.
Anon, you're too dumb to lead this movement.
I propose we sideline you.

>>21665384
>I'm not sure how intelligent people can enact big social changes without money or violence. Articulate speech falls on deaf ears.
You definitely need to read Carl Schmitt.
>Poe's short story "The Maelstrom"
Sounds nice.

>>21667062
Well, in The Road to Revolution (available in Technological Slavery), TK talks about revolutionaries demanding the very opposite of the system in order to be an opposition.
The right demand would be stop the manufacturing of these chemicals, but asking for blood is the best way to stablish a threat.
Asking for regulations is basically saying "yeah, shit happens idk, keep doing it just be more careful next time, ok bb?"

>>21660468
I think 'being anti- modern tech' = 'all tech is bad' is a false equation. Technology can still be a very helpful tool for communication, data processing, information search, etc. I believe most of the tech that anti-tech people rebel against is propagandist, controlling tech, that shows you what it thinks will keep you hooked, gobbles up attention, harvest your data and polarizes society. Twitter would be an example: imagine a twitter-like interface in which a timeline would be sorted temporally (not algorithmically), you can only have friends that are in close proximity to you, there are no likes (so there is no incentive to post clickbaity articles for popularity)... This could be a useful tool to serve as, for example, a local bulletin board for a neighborhood (things that are lost and found, events/parties close-by, organizing cleanups/garage sales...)
Now compare this to how current-day Twitter actually works. These are all design choices. Facebook implemented red notification bubbles (red=danger) and notifications for being liked/tagged on purpose. They might state that their mission is to 'connect you with your friends', but that statement doesn't ring true anymore when you're a public company that has to make a profit for shareholders.
In my personal opinion, tech can still be a worthwhile tool to help humanity, especially if it's non-profit, local, anonymous, non-complex (no algorithms), uniting and transparent in design. The extent to which tech should be tolerated in this 'movement' is up for discussion; every movement has their extremists and moderates. Some anons will probably advocate for computer and smartphone use, but making things open source and self-hosted. Others will stop at nothing to attain a forest hut without internet. By exacerbating the simple gotcha of "you are anti-tech, yet you still use a computer? Hypocrisy!", one stifles this debate.

>>21667078
Suggest more. I liked this >>21661517 but it might signal volkisch implications, this one >>21660880 is not that bad, I just think it needs to be improved since it's just an arrow.

A fellow privately sent me pic related, I think it's fine but a bit hard to reproduce in graffiti/vandalism.

>>21667093
Where did I say I'm leading? I just took the initiative, I never said I'm in the top of some hierarchy because there shouldn't be a hierarchy in the global level (it's good to have hierarchies in local levels tho)
We are working towards a common goal and it would be best of we had some sort of leaders that could dedicate full time to this enterprise (unfortunately, my free time is presently scarce)
Don't follow me or obey me, just collaborate. Whatever I do wrong, criticize it. Whatever I do right, improve it.

>>21665741
Imagine we run out of fossil fuels (inevitable). Our possibilities are then limited to those before mass use of steam engines (mass use of steam engines like in the industrial revolution requires cheap easily accessible coal, charcoal from trees won't do). So roughly the 17th century. Horses, sailboats, basic wind- and watermills and manual labour, swords, pikes probably pre-industrial levels of cannons and guns. That's what is sustainable pretty much indefinitely.

The filter is basically built in. Without coal, natural gas and oil it's musketeer era forever.

>>21665456
thanks

>>21667172
I don't see why wood powered steam wouldn't be vastly more efficient with modern knowledge and modern rebuilding tolerances.

>>21667151
>is not that bad, I just think it needs to be improved since it's just an arrow.
the simplicity is its power. the fussy stuff with letters and parentheses and all kinds of colours and explanations leads to a mess that also isn't very aesthetic. It also isn't easily drawn or spray painted by anyone in seconds. You need swastika levels of simplicity.

>>21667190
It would probably be more efficient than the first time around but not scaleable or sustainable enough. With coal you can burn the dead trees from millions of years, if you limit yourself to living ones your industrial revolution is going to be small scale and probably temporary. The vikings ran out of trees just building ships, there's a reason people never ran factories on firewood.

Also, you need metallurgic coal for blast furnaces for industrial steel production.

>>21667151
Wouldn't be that hard if you adopt the other way of drawing the tree
(12,000 hours in paint)

>>21667238
Remove the arrows and you have a based symbol.

>>21667261
Yeah I like the single/multihead arrow, like another anon said the simplicity is to its benefit.
I was just demonstrating you can make it simple enough to draw quickly.

I think something like this or a gear/smokestack with a slash across it might be good, at least for a simpler and easy to hide dogwhistle.

>>21667238
>>21667261
>>21667277
Forgot to attach it without spears

>>21667219
Fair points

>>21666817
The thing that piss me off about modern environmentalism is the obsession with climate change. The left obsession with has turned off people to the other problems happening the environment like factory/farm runoff pollution and deforestation.

>>21667296
Yeah, climate change was the ultimate billionaire psyop. Now the microplastic apocalypse can happen and all these academic tards will shovel trillions of dollars into reducing global temperatures by 0.2C°

>>21667285
This is both a pine tree and a bunch of upward/forward pointing arrowheads, or perhaps even a moving arrow stylised, suggesting nature, dynamism and a willingness to action and fighting spirit.

>>21667302
I deleted it because of grammar mistake. I was hoping nobody with respond lol I 'm such a fucking retard

>>21667314
grammar for civcucks doesn't matter

>>21667314
I did it again. My fucking brain is mush from lack of sleep.

>>21667120
Thank you for the suggestion, anon. From a brief review of his wiki, I'm leaning towards Nomos of the Earth or Theory of the Partisan, but do you have any particular suggestions for places to start? Is Schmidt the type of author where one *should* begin with his earlier works, or can an engaged reader jump in anywhere?

>>21667168
Do you know of any other forums/servers where discussion is taking place outside of /lit/? What circles do you find yourself in?

>>21667359
I do not, officer.

>>21667322
Grammar doesn't matter on 4chong. Nobody will think you're retarded for fucking the whole post up. They'll think you're retarded for giving a shit. Just make sure your post is legible.

Anything I should read before reading uncle Teds books?

>>21667488
Don't think so, they're a good entry point

>>21667238
>>21667285
I think very decent and liked the version without spears better.
Loved it

>>21667488
My samizdat introducing the very basics of his thought (which is incomplete, but I progressed a little, I'm rereading The Anti-Tech Revolution in order to lay out simply terms like self-prop systems.

>>21667359
Twitter if you know how to search right. I believe an Anti-Tech discord would be only for the delight of the glowies. Not sure about telegram, it's certainly safer than any other messenger out there.

With this said, I'm not part of any group.

>>21667339
Theory of the Partisan is good.
Nomos of the Earth is a later and more advanced work. I wouldn't suggest you start with it.
The Concept of the Political is his most famous work and lays out most of his important concepts.
You should also read The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy.
These last two are earlier works. I suggest you read them and then Theory of the Partisan. If you want, then, you can read Nomos.
Basic knowledge of Hobbes and Rousseau is advisable, as well as some knowledge about the Weimar Era.

Reading about America before the colonists took it over is so depressing
They took a paradise and ruined it

>>21667874
Paradise is a bit much when you read about how they treated eachother.

>>21667882
I thought all that cruel stuff wasn't so common among natives in the Americas, mostly central and southerns

>>21667700
Telegram’s backend is closed source and default chats are unencrypted, meaning you have no idea what they’re doing with your conversations. Of course discord is even worse, you can literally report someone’s message in DMs and jannies will come read your private conversation to see if you’re a good boy.

Signal is the best option in terms of normie friendly kinda secure online communication but it uses your phone number as identifier so that is not optimal and at the end of the day your conversation is only as safe as the other persons phone.

And of course if agencies really want to look into your shit they can anyway.

>>21667897
Matrix? IRC?

>>21660416
Basic Hegelian shit.
Everything contains the seeds of its own destruction.
Dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools.
The contradictions internal to capitalism will be what allow us to transcend capitalism.
Read Hegel and Marx.

>>21667889
Plenty of Native American trubes in what is now the USA were infamous for their torture practises. Which is partly what made them such fierce warriors since being taken alive was worse than death.

It wasn’t the interrogational pragmatic type either, more ritual and recreational keeping prisoners alive as long as possible for no other reason than to maximise suffering.

There’s a lot of noble savage rhetoric when it comes to talking about evil colonists but the truth is Europeans weren’t especially violent and cruel and in a lot of cases they were even a lot tamer than the people they conquered.

They were however simply better at it.

>>21667900
Conventional irc isn’t secure at all, matrix might outcompete signal by being decentralised but is less normie friendly.

https://www.revolver.news/2023/02/woke-ai-the-final-frontier-of-dystopia/

I’ve disliked smartphones and social media for a long time, but with the advances in AI this past year, it feels like we’re getting to a full on, red alert, holy-shit-this-is-bad phase.
I want to hope and believe that there’s an inherent limit to how much people would accept - I don’t want to believe that everyone would willingly plug themselves into the matrix - but, after seeing what happened with covid, it looks like the majority of people are pretty easily programmed.

>>21667922
>>21667900
>>21667897
XMPP

>>21661149
Currently working on a write-up of several written opinions on this, plus my own. It's a mess, don't expect it any time soon

>>21667911
>There’s a lot of noble savage rhetoric when it comes to talking about evil colonists but the truth is Europeans weren’t especially violent and cruel and in a lot of cases they were even a lot tamer than the people they conquered.
Yeah I definitely agree. Howard Zinn-types love the friendly native image, but American indians were often very cruel it seems. But according to Montaigne at least, this cruelty wasn't altogether senseless. Brazilian indians kidnapped by other tribes in war would get tortured for months, but there was a kind of dignity in suffering, and those who endured it were honored in a way. The Shawnee for instance admired Simon Kenton's endurance against their torture, and gave him a nickname ('The Condemned One') and let him live.

So I think it was about honor in a way. Torture is just the punishment for losing the battle - that's why you accept it and preserve your honor.

>>21667952
This century is the final battle between Kaczynski and Land. Either the technological system will break and collapse before it can innovate itself out of the current problems or it will reach escape velocity.

With these recent developments it is becoming plausible again that tech may win.

>>21667952
As discussed above, everyone has their own point of it going too far. The AI stuff is properly dystopic but then so were smartphones and computers, imo. You'd hope there would be a critical mass of people waking up but if it's not already happened I think there's a decent case to be made that it's too late; even if it happens in the near future those in power have so far eclipsed what the mass of men can hope to accomplish there is no more will of the people, in the sense it can be independent and enforced.

If millions of people woke up tomorrow and decided "this is too far", what would they even be able to do? Mentally they're completely vulnerable to the system's tricks and physically a literal mob doesn't stand a chance anymore against a police or military who actually want to stop them. They'd change their minds back within weeks.
In practice those mental tricks would probably involve calling what we say "dangerous anti tech disinformation", probably holding people's kids hostage via CPS under the pretense that being anti tech is dangerous to the children's health - the anti vax stuff already set a precedent whether it was justified or not - and so on, you don't need me to list any more.

No, I think hoping for a popular resistance is worthless, not because it would be a bad thing, it would be really nice, but because we have such a better chance with individual or small groups who actually know what they believe and won't be swayed by mass propaganda (you'd hope so anyway), and can stay under the radar enough to avoid scorched earth responses from the system.
Incidentally I think that's true of all resistance to the system, I'd recommend that same advice to Christians (or whoever, idc) as well.

>>21660416
>bro, why do you have a standing army if you're against war?

>>21668035
Lately I can't imagine being born 50 years ago or earlier
It seems so obvious now the system will collapse; even in the 90s that must have felt way less likely

>>21668032
>Brazilian indians kidnapped by other tribes in war would get tortured for months
That's hardly true. Captured warrior were frequently kept in good conditions. They were well fed, could walk around freely and could even take a wife during their captivity. Having captured a good warrior was a tremendous honor to a native and they would display their thophy with pride. When, by the end of the captivity, they were eaten, this was seen by the captured warrior as an honor. Chickening out of the sacrifice was frowned upon and they wouldn't eat a coward victim - for obvious reasons.
Many news that arrived from Brazil to Rouen - the port which communicated France with Brazil through merchants and smugglers - were untrustworthy.
Des cannibales is still a good essay, however.

>>21667952
even the publicly available text AIs already pass the turing test better than most humans. most of your one off online interactions on social media could already be with AIs and you wouldn't even know.

Soon though, AI will become a better conversation partner for you than almost any human person, so even if you know it is an AI just how good the conversation is would make it quite irresistible. When you thought social media was bad, wait until most people will start openly choosing to mostly socialise with AI because it is simply better.

>>21668043
I'm less concerned about government coercion and more concerned about people's inherent laziness and stupidity.
No one had to force billions of people to buy a smartphone. Apple just had to make the phones convenient and pleasurable enough, that's all it took.

>>21668070
This is indeed the type of problem I had in mind when writing my post.
If I knew that I was the only human on 4chan and everything else was generated by AI, would I stop using it? It's impossible to predict what I would do. It would of course be very upsetting, to say the least. Quitting 4chan forever would be the RIGHT thing to do, in that case. But I can't predict for sure how I would act.
Although I'm frightened enough by current AI progress to take it seriously, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that current AI methods will be able to achieve superintelligence, or super-stimuli (books better than any human could write, more pleasurable to socialize with than any human, etc).

>>21668043
>Mentally they're completely vulnerable to the system's tricks and physically a literal mob doesn't stand a chance anymore against a police or military who actually want to stop them. They'd change their minds back within weeks.
if you win at overthrowing technological society the next phase is death by starvation for >90% of the population. people aren't going to willfully starve to death because some math professor who was angry at a highway near his cabin wrote some good essays.

>>21660446
The other guy mentioned Hermitix (which is one of the best podcasts period) but to be more specific, Chad Haag is the guest who talks about Ted most (he's had Zerzan on as well though, and Greer is a regular). Chad has his own YT channel which is briddy gud.

>>21668098
>Although I'm frightened enough by current AI progress to take it seriously, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that current AI methods will be able to achieve superintelligence, or super-stimuli (books better than any human could write, more pleasurable to socialize with than any human, etc).
Yeah that remains to be seen, the fact that it is an open question is wild in itself though. And don't forget the AI that has been available to the public lately isn't the most cutting edge stuff currently available.

Makes me think of that one Google AI researcher whistleblower guy who claimed he had been talking to a sentient one or at least one that passes for sentient so well that it would be unethical to treat as a device just in case.

The main scare for me with machine learning is already we've reached the phase of tech where you can no longer see what exactly the machine is doing. ML-produced models can't be understood by any human; all we can do is adjust parameters to (hopefully) tweak the model and regenerate it.

Obviously we're still in a primitive phase. All these AI bots can do is spit out stuff real humans have written or drawn. There's no real "thinking" going on, just spitting out stuff based on predictability. But AI models are now too complex for us to understand, which is creepy

>>21668122
To be fair they do mix and match whatever content they have consumed into what can be said to be a somewhat original combination. Which is also how human creativity works.

I've seen AIs write funny short stories that probably 90% of humans would be too dull and stupid to pull off. It may not beat the greats yet but it already beats most people in terms of content creation of some merit.

>>21667488
Start with industrial society and its future, or the revised version from Technological Slavery (I haven't read this, but I'm looking to soon)
Then I would recommend anti-tech rev or the rest of tech slavery

>>21668104
Even more reason not to care for popular opinion too much

>>21668149
yeah if you want most of the world to die horribly now for some abstract long term good you're going to have a hard time getting their consent.

what is the long term good of such a luddite revolution actually? sincere question.

>>21668167
Even by your own metric of people dying horribly, if you think collapse is inevitable then the sooner it comes the better since happening later on can only mean more people, more horrible dying and so on.
I also don't really think it's fair to call it a necessarily abstract or long term good since the dominance of technique has concrete and immediate negative effects on lives right now. I understand what you mean and how you would think just feeding and housing as many people as possible is better but unless you're a strict utilitarian weirdo I think anyone can admit that path has a limit. Do you stop when people live in hives and are fed intravenously?
You maybe think that's a strawman or unfair but given the rate of change and trajectory of our current state, what is the pro technology position on the abstract long term good of the dominance of technique and the technical mindset? Feeding and housing more bodies than anything else?

>>21668167
>>21668149
>>21668104
I think this is an important discussion. The permaculture guys like to propose more productive forms of food production, etc, but even if we could produce the food necessary to feed 9 billion, a collapse is going to prevent most from getting access to it.
Is a gradual decline of population as part of a slow transition to a post-technological society a pipe dream? TK and other writers certainly seem to think so.

>>21668196
>if you think collapse is inevitable
To add: I understand you might not think this but I think it answers your question. Most people in that side seem to think it's either collapse or singularity, the collapse case being taken above and I would imagine death being a preferable alternative to the singularity case.

>>21668196
>Even by your own metric of people dying horribly, if you think collapse is inevitable then the sooner it comes the better since happening later on can only mean more people, more horrible dying and so on.
only if you're thinking like a utilitarian robot with no skin in the game. if you ask most people if they would kill themselves and everyone they know and love, today, slowly, just because some hypothetical people in the future might die slowly in greater numbers if we don't throw ourselves onto the grenade to save them, they would say fuck those people, i'm not sacrificing everything i care about over a hypothetical.

>I also don't really think it's fair to call it a necessarily abstract or long term good since the dominance of technique has concrete and immediate negative effects on lives right now.
more negative side effects than global death by starvation for almost everybody immediately? i think most people would say no thanks i'll stick with the vague sense of alienation i get sometimes and a bit of plastic in my water.

>I understand what you mean and how you would think just feeding and housing as many people as possible is better but unless you're a strict utilitarian weirdo I think anyone can admit that path has a limit. Do you stop when people live in hives and are fed intravenously? You maybe think that's a strawman or unfair but given the rate of change and trajectory of our current state, what is the pro technology position on the abstract long term good of the dominance of technique and the technical mindset? Feeding and housing more bodies than anything else?
my point is not that technological society will lead to the best long term path over all of space and time by calculated utility or something, but rather that we are at the moment stuck in and dependent upon a system for our existence and that people ultimately care about very concrete things. in the abstract one can make convincing arguments that pulling the plug on technological society is ultimately for the greater good for abstract reasons, but in practise crashing 8 billion people into a hellish death spiral because certain people think technology bad in the long run for not entirely clear and well defined philosophical reasons is supervillain behaviour that nobody would go along with. even religious suicide bombers and martyrs at least go to paradise themselves and reunite with their loved ones there, what does the anti-tech terrorist gain? dying in a ditch hoping that maybe after the house of cards collapses in on itself whatever arises out of the rubble will be better in ways that nobody he ever knew or cares about can taste the fruits of? that level of abstract martyrdom is extremely rare and by most people's standards flat out irrational.

It's one of those
>quote
response
kind of posts made by people with brown skin and/or 100iq

>>21667897
If you guys open a signal discussion group, I'm in

BILLIONS MUST DIE

>>21668367
Yes billions must die for million to survive.

>>21668198
>>21668205
i think it is very likely that a slow managed transition is impossible to accomplish and i think it very likely that collapse is inevitable. anyone alive at the moment whose life is better than global holomodor should hope that we can delay it as long as possible though. hastening collapse does not mean that you can live the primitive life next year. it means that maybe someone else in a few generations after most of the extreme misery dies down can maybe do something approaching that. the generation that would actually have to live through collapse would be the most cursed generation in human history. selfishly it only makes sense to hope that is the next one instead of ours.

>>21668134
I would recommend this by order:
1. ISaiF from Technological Slavery
2. The Road to Revolution (in Technological Slavery)
3. Anti Tech Revolution: Why and How
4. The rest of texts from Technological Slavery.

TK spends too much time bashing leftists in TS, it's better to just from ISaiF straight to ATR:WH. The Road to Revolution is a good bridge between both works.

>>21668324
You're now talking like it's a popularity contest. Maybe most people would say this maybe they would say that but at the end of the day that's not my concern; most people might say I worship a false god or am of an inferior race but I don't go about worrying about that.
Your whole argument also still applies to the people living in the hive being fed through an IV drip. They've got skin in the game, they would rather not die but at the end of the day, we, as a society, let it get this far and we now reap the consequences. I'd say the same about the IV hive people and >if I lived in an society that worshiped idols then I'd say the same thing about the inevitable punishment. We made the bed, we now lie in it and there's unfortunately no getting out of that, morally or practically.
If we didn't want collapse we never should have started on the path that inevitably leads to it, and at every step complied with its growth and dominance over ourselves. The only moral and upright choice is against the system that dehumanises everyone it touches, that is itself inherently against dignity.

>technology bad in the long run for not entirely clear and well defined philosophical reasons
Is a bit silly, I just said they are clear reasons and have demonstrable effects in the here and now so obviously I don't think that is the case.

And also your bit about what anti-tech terrorists gain seems weird considering the prominence of martyrs in basically every comparable movement throughout history I can think of, and also you seem to assume we're all atheists or something, which I don't know is the case. The pagan guys believe in reincarnation so to them it seems like a really good deal: either you keep reincarnating into technological hell or you struggle in this life and reincarnate into your primitive utopia (or whatever) forever, and the Christians (and Christian adjacent religions) of course have the motive that the system is and will continue stripping society of even the possibility of true religion i.e. salvation so if you want to good deeds, somehow preventing it from damning all future generations to hell seems like a good start, if you can get over the global starvation, which you might believe will just happen anyway. If you can't do that then it's still complete lunacy to take a pro tech stance in any case but you are asking about luddite revolutions and not passive resistance or something.

How many anti-tech anons are anarchists, or at least anarchist-adjacent? TK seems to be one, from my reading, as well several others mentioned in this thread and the last one. I know we've had a new natsocs join the discussion, so I'm curious.

>>21668412
>You're now talking like it's a popularity contest. Maybe most people would say this maybe they would say that but at the end of the day that's not my concern; most people might say I worship a false god or am of an inferior race but I don't go about worrying about that.
not just now, that was my original point. that most people aren't "tricked by the system" in not choosing to starve themselves and their loved ones and most of humanity to death for the sake of anti-tech ideology, they have a real personal interest in not doing so. of course you can decide that the masses are wrong to think so and that it is better to do global holodomor against their wishes for the greater good in the long run, but don't expect them to cooperate on any meaningful scale. in fact i wouldn't be surprised if the feds are keeping tabs on anyone who even think it is a good idea to do this (thank you for your service officers please delay collapse by luddite terrorists until after my natural death at old age).

>If we didn't want collapse we never should have started on the path that inevitably leads to it, and at every step complied with its growth and dominance over ourselves.
i was born with the system firmly in place and had to opportunity to either go along or perish, just as all other people alive today including you. it's pretty psychopathic to say people deserve death by starvation just for the society they happened to be born in.

>Is a bit silly, I just said they are clear reasons and have demonstrable effects in the here and now so obviously I don't think that is the case.
which of the criticisms of technological society do you find so convincing that you wish holodomor on you and your people just to get rid of it though?

>And also your bit about what anti-tech terrorists gain seems weird considering the prominence of martyrs in basically every comparable movement throughout history I can think of, and also you seem to assume we're all atheists or something, which I don't know is the case.
that's fair i guess, i was assuming a kaczynski-like position. once you start to include religions beliefs there can be scenarios in which it makes sense game theoretically to trigger global holodomor or the apocalypse itself for that matter, since there are worse faiths than starving to death in that case.

for almost all people though, including religious people, triggering what would be the greatest disaster in human history can barely have any arguments in favour of it strong enough to make them consent to it freely. luckily the people who think otherwise are mostly larpers who don't turn to action and those that turn to action do so in ways that barely make a dent. just look at uncle ted himself, ultimately he maimed and killed a couple professors and office workers and his reward was rotting away in a concrete jail for the rest of his life in return for a handful of disenfranchised people discussing his writings on the internet.

>>21668473
Me

I thought about writing software that rewards people for running a screensaver, locking them out from their computer for some time

It could be even paired with some lib bs „message“ being displayed or the Ukrainian flag. Anyway they’d get rewarded some crypto funny money.
Very doable.

>>21668502
Oh right. What I mean by tricked by the system was that if we all woke up tomorrow convinced that technological society must fall! then most people would sort of snap out of it within weeks on account of propaganda and coercion rather than necessarily any other reason.

As for your questions, even though I'm myself that convinced in favour of acceleration, I think generally the position can be summed up with the question: what is the alternative? Just letting technique dominate humanity forever and ever because of some gay sunk cost attitude? At what point do we actually say enough is enough, because you've carefully avoided addressing that, do we literally wait until we all get chipped or we're living in the hive or whatever shit you imagine is the endpoint of it all? The truth is, what I was trying to get across, that the right time to end this was before it began, or as soon as we became aware of that path we were going down. People instead preferred cheaper goods, more food, indoor heating and so on, which are not minor affects or trivialities but in the end are not as valuable as you and your family's eternal souls getting buck broken by the technological satan.

The best time to end it was before it began, the next best time while it was beginning and so on every day after until today. In a century people will make the same arguments you do and they will have more force to them because there will be 10, 20, 50 billion people instead of 8 and you will depend on the system for more than just food and shelter, but for your social relationships and happiness. It's never going to get any better. Even if I'm not sure of acceleration (I think I've laid it out well enough though) I can still tell you if the system is going to collapse I'd rather it happen today than tomorrow.

>>21668625
>run screensaver to mine pinecoin on my laptop
>scroll tiktok on my phone in the meanwhile
luddites outsmarted by the techies yet again

>>21668631
*myself not that convinced in favour of acceleration

>>21668631
i don't see any real alternative to eventual collapse (unless some sort of transhumanist ai wildcard happens but while possible i would assign that pretty low probability), but i don't feel too confident in predicting if we're talking months, years, decades or even centuries. things are too complex, we may have a crisis tomorrow but we may also come up with some kick the can down the road technologies to keep things going a while longer like we did in the past with certain agricultural innovations and energy sources and the like. there may also be partial and local collapses and industrial society continuing on a smaller scale in other places. who knows.

personally i would say "the best time to end it was before it began, the next best time is after i and the people i care about are gone". it ultimately all comes down to a matter of value judgments of course but i don't think contemporary life is horrible enough to choose holodomor now. maybe there will come a point where the technological innovations become so dystopian that i would join the camp of wishing for immanent collapse, but we're far from there yet. we all have different tolerances i guess.

if we look at history the only time people risk the entire status quo including their own lives and those of their people for revolution is when they're literally out of bread and will die anyway unless something changes. so unless people are starving and you can seduce them with an alternative that might fill the bellies of their children i don't think you get a lot of enthusiasm for radical change. the indignities suffered by the technological satan hurt less than starvation for now.

there's also something ironic although very understandable about the fact that the type of people who hate technological society often are or were extremely online and alienated individuals with little to lose so the "blow it all up" moment may have obviously already arrived for them, while some guy that does relatively well in our world and who uses whatsapp to send videos of his dog to his elderly mother once in a while and watches football on the tv would be completely puzzled if you think this is worth burning down the world over and also doesn't see how this interferes with him being a good christian or muslim or person in general or something.

>>21668808
>last paragraph
That's all political movements desu
The ones not directly fueled by the elites anyway (like the American revolution)

>>21668473
Me. Safe to assume Forest Anon is too judging by all of the anarchist lit he reads.

>>21668473
Hierarchical societies always btfo the egalitarian ones though. They're better at violence and the best at violence wins.

>>21668834
true, at least the radical revolutionary ones. people who have bread may peacefully protest for shorter work days or better healthcare and have done so successfully in the past, but in order to go full nechayev you must have nothing to lose.

>>21668473
I'm not an anarchist at all, I think a hierarchy will rise whether we want it or not.

>>21667903
>Everything contains the seeds of it own destruction.
Does that apply to you luddites as well? Shall you destroy yourself?
>>21668047
Yes. You are naive. You think if you war with tech that it will be a short and sweet war. You don't realize that innovations win wars. If you play into their hands, you are hopelessly lost. You can't hack; you can't innovate; you can't surveil. You don't even have a standing army. You are so far from that. The disparity is greater than the club from the cannon.

>>21668938
The question of politics to me is not: Which society is the strongest?, but, Which society makes people the happiest?

The real problem for anarchists is deciding how they could protect against outside influences

>>21669115
Yeah, the only way to conserve your happiness is by either being the strongest or finding some way to be left alone by the strongest, but the latter is very fickle.

The problem is, the strongest are rarely the happiest because a society minmaxxed for martial supremacy simply has different priorities and resource allocation than one that cares first about happiness. So the miserable martialists will always conquer and overtake the happy hippies, just look at how the first agriculturalist malnourished rotten toothed manlets obliterated the healthy and free hunter-gatherers. Their society was optimal for expansion at the expense of wellbeing and they won.

Honestly the closest thing for anarcho-luddites to getting what they want is setting up some Amishesque situation within the confines of Uncle Sam's mighty monstrosity and render unto Caesar while loudly proclaiming to be a movement of peace that thanks the USG on their knees for the right to archaic agrarianism.

>>21666817
This is such a retarded image. Pro-derailment is not a policy position that exists to protest against. It was an accident, not a conscious decision or policy one could agree or disagree with beyond our societys use of the chemicals themselves. As for that, most environmentalists complain about them constantly since forever.

>>21669154
That's historically the case for sure.

I still think there are ways around this. The Kalahari Bushmen have been mostly left alone for example because the land is so useless to everyone else. Realistically you want to take up residence within the borders of another nation, and have some degree of autonomy. Maybe I'm wrong but we seem to be at a point in history where raw land mass doesn't really matter anymore, the world's finance runs on the backs of a a few cities -- the main obstacle is all this land is privatized and you'd have to be Bill Gates level rich to obtain a big chunk. But hell, with a billionaire sponsor maybe Neo-Luddites could get their own land.

Beyond that it's impossible. For one, you can't convert a population from farming to hunter-gathering, there's not enough fauna. The best you can do is switch back to subsistence farming. If hunter-gathering were allowed to exist again, it would be at the grace of stronger powers. The silver lining is: This isn't incompatible with our modern beliefs. Best case scenario, this idea goes mainstream and now everyone is talking about how we should build a "Human Reserve" somewhere in the USA. Those who feel dis-enchanted with the rat race could drop out, like monasteries worked in the past. Tell people it's anti-racist, egalitarian, and pro-environment (all true). Maybe American leftists will move on from their retardation and find a real good cause to champion.

>>21669259
Sounds based, maybe Jack from Twitter will bankroll it since he's into being a dirty ascetic and traumatised by running a tech company.

>>21669270
Biggest issue is hunting can't sustain many people. Historians even say most hunter-gatherers didn't stop by choice, but because the increase of people due to pastoralism made it impossible to stay fed.

So unfortunately it could never be fully free. Human and animal populations would be monitored to reduce the risk of over-grazing/overhunting. Also anyone who wants in would be subject to an application process, accepting everyone would cause a dangerous population spike. The upside is, these populations are stable, no real population explosions or sharp declines outside of war.

But, well, it's possible. A dream within a dream, but still..

>>21669413
Neolithic human reservation with subsistence agriculture and a little bit of supplementary fishing and small game hunting should be doable desu.

Everyone in here needs to convert to orthodox judaism

>>21669473
elaborate

>>21669481
Human technique hasn’t overrun their community to the point where they have lost connection to their spiritual traditions that everyone else has lost.

>>21669578
are they as luddite as the amish or more/less so?

>>21669591
Depends on the sect

I no longer can read the news or observing the world without seeing symptoms of collapse all around.
You need to be quite socialized by propaganda to not see it coming.

>>21670060
The system may also readjust in time to live another 500 years. That's why action is ESSENTIAL, and as technology progresses and the human race is subjected to more unthinkable horrors, it will become even harder for future generations to fell the Leviathan- and if mankind succeeds- what form will they be in? Already reduced to cattle?

>>21670088
I agree with you. Our goal is not only destroy the system, but prevent it to adapt the upcoming crisis.

What am I in for, bros?

>>21670278
Is it still relevant? I like reading books in physical form. I was thinking of getting Mumford books.

>>21669578
Ironic considering Evola points to the Jews as an already-degenerated race whose religious form was exported to Europe, which then itself became further degenerated into Faustian man

>>21670088
that already happened lmao
to see all you have to look at is the human self domestication hypothesis; humans display all traits that are present in the domestication of animals compared to their pre agriculture counterparts
we lost a lemon's worth of brain in just 12,000 years iirc

the fight goes on and will go on, endlessly, until the end of the universe, the cycle, or the kali yuga

>>21670342
One of the most elegant tricks of the system is that it nurtures weakness which creates clients to its patronage by necessity The system allows people to be successful with shitty eyesight, gives them glasses, allows them to procreate and creates a whole part of the population that could not survive without this relatively simple technology. It allows narrow hipped women to procreate with c-sections who create narrow hipped daughters who need c-sections. By isolating humans from nature it creates allergies, the allergies which make these people experience nature as a hostile threat to their wellbeing. It creates cripples who need level surfaces and wheelchairs, it creates foods which create diabetics who need the system's insulin to survive. It creates mental illness and the pills to blunt the symptoms. Over the centuries it weakens us more and more and makes us need it more and more and thereby blackmails us into ensuring its survival, creating a slave population of human chihuahuas that fearfully do whatever they must to not be left out there naked without technology.

>>21660416
reddit alert

>>21670342
Shut your mouth, worm tongue. Begone!
We will stand and fight!

>>21670409
>The system allows people to be successful with shitty eyesight, gives them glasses
your point is taken but that metaphor is untrue
poor eyesight is caused by lack of enough sun exposure at the age where the shape of the eye is developing to match a particular focal length of the lens, around 7 I believe


>>21670490
I'm agreeing with you, weirdo
the point is not to give up hope, because a calamity has already happened, we just need to stop it from getting infinitely worse as long as out souls hold sway on this Earth

>>21670532
>poor eyesight is caused by lack of enough sun exposure at the age where the shape of the eye is developing to match a particular focal length of the lens, around 7 I believ
I think China is suffering an eyesight epidemic among children now because they're all inside studying and on devices all day so that's a good point, although as far as I know there is also a considerable genetic component involved in bad eyesight generally.

Even if were purely circumstantial it still fits the bill though, just like the diabeetus.

>>21670547
yeah, I refer to these kinds of beings as Wall-E people, like the fat ipad fucks in the movie who need to learn how to walk again

>>21660405
))<>((

FOREVER.

>>21670599
our logo really shouldn't be shaped like a goatse

>>21660405
Shouldn't you guys be on /pol/ or something?

>>21670739
You are already the poop in back and forth forever.

>>21670785
As long as there’s discussion of the books in question, I’m inclined to allow some LARP

>>21660416
That's why I think there should be an anti-tech movement that shuns technology past a certain point. I'm not sure exactly when, probably early 2000s.

>>21665456
Love this interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPx5EabmECw

>>21669473
As someone who used to be an Orthodox Jew I can say no. On Shabbat yes, and you'll quickly feel how awful technology disrupts social gatherings on shabbat. After the synagouge we'd have 20 people over at some guys house, eat food, drink, tell stories, and then go around the neighborhood to other people's houses who also had 20 people and saying hi. There's no texting, phone calling or any manipulation of electricity.

But the reason I say no is because plenty of Rabbi's I know work in tech/banking(kek i know)/and other highly industrialized sectors. And unless you go to Israel, there's almost no rural orthodox Jewish communities, they all live in big cities.

You'll get a little less tech if you go to some part of Israel where there's a yashiva but then you're just dealing with a bunch of men studying Torah.

I got no answers. I just weep for the animals

>>21671192
Early 2000s? It was just when environmental destruction accelerated to the most concerning levels.

Since some posts ago you guys were talking about the dangers of AI, there is something I want to ask.
Can anyone confirm whether it's true that Google Is always listening?

Because yesterday I was talking about RPGs with some friends I've met. I didn't do any research about RPGs, we were just talking with our phones nearby. I didn't search for RPGs recently, not even in months.
Today I'm getting loads of ads with RPG recommendations.

I think this is concerning since, if there are super AIs out there, speaking about Anti-Tech with a phone around would have me an AI profiling me and probably allowing a three letter agency to have this profiling.
If confirmed that my phone is always listening, I'm dropping it. I still have to carry around for a number of reasons (such as calling an Uber or checking my balance), but I think I'll keep it off in my backpack for now on.

>>21671312
Based Jew. Thanks for your information.

>>21671970
Womb to tomb surveillance. It's not a coincidence. "Good" news is it's mostly to capture your attention and get you to spend your money. Bad news is it probably won't always be that benign. I mean, even today, If you ruffle too many feathers and cross some threshold of influence, you could be in trouble.

I worry what a future dictatorship will do with decades of data on individuals...

>>21672008
>"Good" news is it's mostly to capture your attention and get you to spend your money. Bad news is it probably won't always be that benign.
I realized the patterns of media too. "Good" news is almost always the advertisement of some product or political platform. "Good" news involving technology is obviously because some mega corp is sponsoring that news channel, website or blog, it only says the positive aspects of certain innovation without the negative implications. And sometimes the "good" news are not even accurate (see the vaccine issue, since it was confirmed to be little efficient, the media insisted in advertising that it was the only way).
Bad news is usually negative propaganda trying to undermine critics of the system and so forth.

>I worry what a future dictatorship will do with decades of data on individuals...
It won't even need to be a dictatorship. I think things will continue to be like it is now. The government of many countries are heavy lobbied by big tech and big farma companies and whoever is president will pretty much bow to their will even if they want to resist (see Trump changing his stance on the vaccines and how he would always speak of Pfizer with a high regard after that)
This surveillance will affect citizens and government officials, it's delivering a lot of power to the hands of a few small companies.

>>21671970
>Can anyone confirm whether it's true that Google Is always listening?
Yes. Most of these tech companies don’t even ship a product as their primary way to make money anymore, their primary asset is all the data they’ve collected that they can use to get clicks on ads

>>21671970
I personally find impressive how the major data harvesting and processing company in Silicon Valley is CIA-backed, financed with taxpayer dollars, founded by Elon Musk's buddy and it's named after a device in Tolkien Legendarium that is infamously used by the Lord of Darkness to spy on the realms of men in order to destroy and enslave.
You can't make that shit up, we don't even need strong PR, we just need casual pub conversations to convince people that the system is evil, that tech is already enslaving us and it's evolving to enslave even more.

>>21671970
Yes. Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft have officially admitted that they perform constant passive surveillance. You agree to it when you accept their terms of service. They say they "reserve the right" to have a human review the data but that it "is not happening" and "will not be atrached to your personal identity." Obviously a sham, because metadata analytics is enough to personally identify anyone.

>>21671970
If dumb phones aren't viable for you, you can also try getting a (used) Google Pixel phone (everyone knows the irony) and learn to install GrapheneOS on it https://youtu.be/xIXAzA555xk

It's what I have, I'm not an avid phone user so my only gripe is the frequent security updates.

>>21671192
That's probably your childhood. Even most normies say technology was ideal when they were about twelve years old.

>>21671641
Industrial civilisation has actually vastly decreased the animal suffering in the world if you take into account wild animal suffering. The amount of sentient beings per square mile hasn't been this low in millions of years.

how about this? Idk if someone did it before but its very simple and imo nice. Pine tree surround by a circle
( Protect nature)

>>21671970
The problem is, even if you drop your phone everyone you talk to still has one on them. We live in a society where everyone voluntarily carries their surveillance device with them.

If you have any thoughts that might get you in trouble the place to keep them is inside your mind. That's where it's still private, for now.

>>21672647
did apustaja draw this

>>21672662
No i dont know who that is. I made it.
Honestly im hoping to make it more intresting by adding context how the triangle of the tree might represent God on top, The material world on the left and spiritual world on the right. How its all connected etc. Im gonna read 30+ books in the next 6 months in order to create my own philosophy and ideas.

Just go LARP in the woods a safe distance from civilisation like Thoreau did and enjoy what is left of nature and simple living.

You're not going to overthrow global industrial capitalism.

>>21672737
Could have sword there was a guy who tried that, some maths professor or other

>>21672790
Yeah Ted lived cycling distance from town, shouting distance from his neighbour and just at instant oatmeal and shit from the store. He was just about as much a LARPer as Thoreau.

Too bad he was a mentally ill tranny because otherwise he could have lived well and peacefully in his woodsy suburb.

>>21672737
"safe distance" is on another planet. You don't have a choice whether you drink pharmaceutical sludge water or polluted well water. There is no way to live "safely" in the wilderness anymore.

>>21672813
I meant the opposite type of safety, as in these people could just walk into town and ask someone for a hamburger and an ankle brace if they fucked something up.

do you guys agree with the Limits to Growth ideas, i've seen more modern interpretations that agree that yes, in about 20 years overpopulation and lack of resource will cause the whole system to crash? from what i've read the trajectory still holds fast and the system simply won't be able to maintain itself for another 20 to 40+ years. will technology find ways to increase resources somehow? geoengineering or some other stuff? decrease population? or just total collapse?

>>21672869
Aren't we heading for an underpopulation crisis actually? Only a handful of African countries have positive birthrates, the rest of the worlds breeds too little to even keep the pyramid scheme going.

>>21672647
It's okay but it reminds of ~le illuminati triangel

Just move to Amish country. You can’t undo societal progress because eventually someone will come along and reinvent it. You’d be better off trying to reorient unhealthy relationship with tech rather than saying it all needs to go.

>>21672961
I know it reminds of occult symbols and so what. Let it be mysterious and intresting. Idk about you niggas but im using this symbol

Here's my logo suggestion,
Let me know what you guys think

>>21661517
Since I really liked this design, I'll do some mischief with it as a test.
Probably tonight.
Here is the pattern, I'll just spray over it

>>21672647
So try to make it more pine-like, since we agreed on pines.

>>21673124
I'm not sure of what I'm looking at.

>>21672898
That's the BAU1 scenario from the book. This is the outdated projection. We are on BAU2 (like pic) and technocrats want to push us to a CT scenario (aka Comprehensive Technology, or basically geoengineering)

Is Ted K a really good read?

>>21673320
I think we all can be honest enough to say that he is not a great writer who cares much about structure and style. His ideas may get all over the place and sometimes he is too redundant in explaining certain concepts.
But his ideas are interesting and deserves a closer look. Kaczynski is a mere introduction to the Technological Question, his greatest success is introducing a large subject in short writings and in a very ordered way (paragraphs, easy to consult, easy to reread)

Enjoy your gut worms and other parasites)))

>>21673149
this is what the anti-tech revolution amounts too, people doing ugly graffiti with their poisonous industrial spraypaint, that will show them

>>21673495
And dying from an infected toe nail. Life in nature is fucking brutal and full of Lovecraftian horrors. Natives upon encountering Europeans would do anything for the tools of civilisation to make life a little more bearable in the constant fight against the wild. Even the hunter-gatherers today trade for machetes and wear chicago bulls jerseys.

>>21673259
So you're saying the world population will continue to grow rapidly? Because that seems at odds with all current trends.

>>21673531
As a medfag, I find anti-tech movement idiotic. If only they knew the brutal and gorey history of medicine they would not be luddites