/lit/ - Literature

praxis versus ideological ramblings, you wouldn't get it

>>21814196
His praxis was informed by his almost marxist materialism though.

>>21814170
It was the material organization of society. Pseuds like Ellul are criticized in his works, because it doesn't matter how much you think about a problem if you don't make an attempt to solve it. Anything besides a solution is literal cope and mental masturbation.

Kaczynski's solution is a compromise predicated on the belief that if Industrial Society is destroyed, it won't come back. This is considered fairly reasonable, and it's something that is already discussed by techfags, the reason being that most surface deposits of energy or metals have been used up.
Whether it's possible or not doesn't matter if you're Kaczynski. He saw three outcomes:
>1. Do nothing and cope.
In this case, he may be able to live in the wilderness with some intrusion, but there is the possibility that his life will be uprooted multiple times (it already was TWICE by industrial development), but the real issue is that by inaction he would be willingly allowing humans to more closely approach "the worst possible outcome."
>2. Fight back and fail.
In this case, he attempts to prevent the subsumation of humanity under technique, but fails. It really doesn't matter; his personal level of pleasure and fulfillment is roughly equal to the above option.
>3. Fight back and succeed.
Great!

Kaczynski wasn't insane and thoroughly thought about what a revolution would entail and its probabilities. He also expressly stated that he knew he wouldn't see a collapse of industrial society in his lifetime;.his actions were primarily altruistic, although you can psychoanalyze and try to say that it was for his own self-actualization. Either way, his assessment was correct, his criticism of ineffectual academicism was correct, and his attempt was respectable.

Yes, Ted preferred an organized society not beholden to the technological system. Anything else?

>>21814170
>was balanced by his faith
Well, its right there. He didn't have magical metaphysical cope. Can't you see how that shit renders almost all large critical complaints on existence moot so that the "user" is free to ponder in a robust fantasy environment?

Basically Ted had to function in the real world and Ellul got to speculate while playing GTA.

>>21814213
>really doesn't matter; his personal level of pleasure and fulfillment is roughly equal to the above option.
You think life in supermax solitary is equal to cottagecore forest life?

>>21814243
I think sitting in your cottage thinking about how bad humanity will suffer (or become pleasuremaxed in horrifying utilitarian ways) while looking over your shoulder for when thousands of metric tonnes of heavy metals or pharmaceutical waste infest your waters before you die from unintentionally drinking it. (And other industrial shenanigans)

He dies with a clear conscience and justified, at least in his own mind.

Samefag

>>21814170
What you seem to be missing is that Ted did have faith, far too much in fact. Unfortunately what he placed his faith in was people, to revolt against a technological society. Clearly, at the time and even now, it was misplaced...

>>21814213
Ellul clearly inspired Ted, so in a way mental masturbation contributed to real world progress. You can say the same about Plato or Aristotle.

>>21815983
So in your opinion, everyone ought to masturbate, and the moment one person translates masturbation-theory into practice, the masturbator is praised and the agent of practice criticized? Or else, how could mental masturbation contribute to real world progress? Someone has to become a martyr.

>>21814213

5 star fucking post right here

he's really heightfrauding with that hair

>>21814213
>Pseuds like Ellul are criticized in his works, because it doesn't matter how much you think about a problem if you don't make an attempt to solve it
He participated in environmental movements against the French State, housed anarchists during the Spanish Civil War, fought against Nazis in the French Resistance and wrote dozens of books concerning technique (which is itself an action). He did more than Ted ever did.

>>21816860
All worthless in the end. So he supports one side of the industrial system against another, or token anarchism (and shitloads can be said about how retarded anarchisn is); big deal. His single greatest contribution was Ted, whose book has been more widely read than Ellul's entire corpus put together, (action, according to you) and who put forth a plan to dismantle industrialism.

>>21817062
>So he supports one side of the industrial system against another
How? What do anarchists and Resistance fighters have to do with the industrial system? He wasn't a soldier in the army or anything.
>token anarchism
He identified the State as the primary mover of technique, and resisted centralization in France to Paris. There's nothing token about this, he's not running into a forest like Ted, he's actively engaging in the primary problems of the XXth century.
>His single greatest contribution was Kaczynski, whose book has been more widely read than Ellul's entire corpus put together, (action, according to you)
Popularity is irrelevant, when 99% of Unabomber LARPers spend their time posting memes on the internet. And what great insights has Kacyznski made? Nothing original is in his thought.
>and who put forth a plan to dismantle industrialism
Not at all. In fact, Kacyznski's idea is nothing more than a reinforcement of the industrial complex, much like the Romantics were in the XIXth century.

>>21817180
All pseud rhetoric.
>How? What do anarchists and Resistance fighters have to do with the industrial system? He wasn't a soldier in the army or anything.
Anarchism in the popular sense is everything we have now but with a new form of government (or lack thereof). I have some doubts that Ellul believed the deaths of almost everyone on Earth, which is necessary for a reversal of industrialism and a return to natural agriculture, was going to result from his own brand of anarchy.
>He identified the State as the primary mover of technique,
Which is as retarded as a Marxist that believes capital is the mover of technique.
>There's nothing token
Token anarchism, although you can construe him not as anarchic, but as merely against the previous hierarchy.
>Popularity is irrelevant, when 99% of Unabomber LARPers spend their time posting memes on the internet.
And Ellul is irrelevant aside from Ted and mental masturbators.
>And what great insights has Kacyznski made? Nothing original is in his thought.
Technological Slavery:
>ISAIF, [...] has been criticized as "unoriginal," but this misses the point. ISAIF was never intended to be original. Its purpose is to set forth certain points about modern technology in clear and relatively brief form, so that those points could be read and understood by people who would never work their way through a difficult text such as Jacques Ellul's Technological Society.
>The accusation of unoriginality is in any case irrelevant. Is it important for the future of the world to know whether Ted Kaczynski is original or unoriginal? [...]
>If there is anything new in my approach, it is that I've taken revolution seriously as a practical proposition. Many radical environmentalists and "green" anarchists talk of revolution, but as far as I'm aware none of them have shown any understanding of how revolutions come about, nor do they seem to grasp the fact that the exclusive target of revolution must be technology itself, not racism, sexism, or homophobia. A very few serious thinkers have suggested revolution against the technological system, for example, Ellul, in his Autopsy of Revolution. But Ellul only dreams of a revolution that would result from a vaguely defined, spontaneous spiritual transformation of society, and he comes very close to admitting that the proposed spiritual transformation is impossible. [...]
All biting critique that I noticed myself when reading Ellul. It goes a bit into what I said about the above: any revolution that truly un-does the technological system will by necessity be horribly violent and destructive, and altogether outside of the sensitive and cognitively dissonant mind of someone like Ellul.

>Not at all. In fact, Kacyznski's idea is nothing more than a reinforcement of the industrial complex, much like the Romantics were in the XIXth century.
Now you veer into entirely dishonest rhetoric.

>>21817180
To put it simply, Ellul's idea of a revolution is on the level of
>One day everyone will become enlightened and we'll all be happy and dance around bonfires and everything will be so great! :D

>>21814258
>He dies with a clear conscience and justified, at least in his own mind.
I think his biggest accomplishments involve blowing the fingers off some dudes secretary.

>>21817290
I think that anon is a low key fascist.

>>21814170
Let's be real, it was because Ellul was fat.

>>21814830
>What you seem to be missing is that Ted did have faith, far too much in fact.

>I believe in nothing. -- Ted Kaczynski, May 4, 1998

>>21817393
He is responsible for the majority of Ellul's current readership and he far overshadows Ellul in terms of academic and popular recognition. His "terrorism" was wildly successful in propagating his views.
>But that just makes him look extreme! no one will associate with anti-tech now!!
Kaczynski mentioned that: Anyone who would be turned off by violence or death is a detriment. The end of the industrial system would result in the starvation of no less than five billion people, and wars, famine, disease, and other factors would probably kill billions more. Kaczynski didn't want to attract pacifists.

>>21817395
Which would be interesting because I have nothing against fascism per se, and I am not an anarchist. He seems more like a marxist to me.

>>21817440
>I have nothing against fascism
Are you a Kaczynski fan or not?

>>21817425
>>I believe in nothing. -- Ted Kaczynski, May 4, 1998
this isn't a cope, it's a resignation. he obviously fucking believes something, muh you wouldn't get it is the most pathetic thing I have ever heard. ted is unironically incel tier with the way he needs attention and attempts to weasel into the media from a jail cell

>>21817451
Kaczynski is not an anarchist and criticized both anarchy and primitivism.

>>21817451
>>21817455
But lets critique how anarchism is not antithetical to industrialism. Let's assume a true anarchy really forms, and the people govern themselves with no regulating body, and they do so in an entirely peaceful and utopian manner.
When the people see that shutting down so-and-so agricultural industrial plant will result in a de facto 7,000,000 dead without increasing industrial production elsewhere, they will simply not do it. Almost all anarchy is supported with the belief that we can continue to have the same standard of living without government. If that is the case, anarchy won't result in a reversal of industrialism, and if it's not, they simply won't because billions will not agree to die. Anarchy is, like all political movements, entirely aligned with industrialism.

>>21817363
You have not even read Ellul, lol. Don't comment on a thinker you haven't read retard.

>>21817491
I'm making an ironical criticism of Ellul's cloud-headed propositions.

>>21817432
thing is i would have been impressed if he had blown up someone who actually mattered and the secretary was probably innocent. But yeah, i get that it brought attention to his work so in a sense, yeah it was sort of an accomplishment.

>>21817455
But he never criticized techno fetishist imperialist fascism, I’m so sure.

>>21817495
They are not Ellul's "propositions" because he never proposed them as a solution. In 'The Technological Society', he states clearly that he makes no attempt to suggest a solution, and only ventures to describe the problem in detail. It's an important distinction. As far as he is concerned, there is no answer to the problem of technique yet known.

>>21817505
>thing is i would have been impressed if he had blown up someone who actually mattered and the secretary was probably innocent.
True. Kaczynski's defense of his targets was that he couldn't be choosy. His method of delivery (dropping a random delivery to someone unsuspecting) wasn't going to work for killing high-profile targets because of security. He tried to choose people that were more involved with technological development than a cashier, for instance, but he was under no illusions that the bombings themselves would result in any change.

>>21817512
I'm not talking about TTS. But if you want to say he didn't entertain ideas of a spiritual revolution, then that only worsens your position on the practicality divide between Kaczynski and Ellul.
>>21817509
It's more fair to say I am not particularly against any form of government. I have political beliefs, but by and large if I could choose between a my most favoured industrial government system or my most disfavoured post-industrial one, I would choose the post-industrial.
Kaczynski is similar in that he likes the thought of a primitive anarchic lifestyle, but he doesn't care as long as the I.S. is destroyed. Whether the dominant post-industrial political system is anarchy, absolute monarchy, or Stalinism doesn't really matter.

>>21817475
Self preservation will lead all communes to not not commit suicide, but tackling environmental issues and energy supply will also be on their mind. Growth for growths sake in the capitalists world will slow to a stop. Is Ted really about mass starve-offs?

Some anarchists will be more technological some are already far below it. But again, the drivers of capitalism are why we’re pushing at it so hard. Profit motivated greed gone will lead to a slowing and stopping of it in most parts. A whole other world to reassess the situation.

>>21817537
Well you really should care and be against certain form of government, IE centralized forms, as they’re the type that started this.

>>21817432
Kaczynski's entire premise is insanely short-sighted. All you have to do is think it through
>Billions must die
Okay. For what?
>We will return to hunting game
Nearly all wild game is dead. That can't support any real population at all.
>Back to agriculture/serfdom
You're fine with regular cycles of famine and disease killing off millions? When 1 in 4 deaths in Europe were caused by Tuberculosis? When people wore rags and smelled like shit all the time for the benefit of a few individuals? Hell that's basically just the dystopic future you fear right now, except with more leisure time. Do you know what kind of shit European peasants ate? They got meat once a week, and it was salted pork. It was fucking awful.

Modern life sucks in lots of ways, but there are countless silver linings: UBI may become a real thing soon. You can empathize with Ted, but his conclusion just doesn't make sense. Modern life is not as bad as he claims.

>>21817505
He had some kind of pathology against university professors. Dunno why.

>>21817608
>He had some kind of pathology against university professors. Dunno why.
I dont think he got the recognition he felt he deserved and i think he had problems socializing that made it harder for him to be successful when compared to others.

>>21817608
>>Billions must die
>Okay. For what?
A goal in itself.
>Nearly all wild game is dead. That can't support any real population at all.
Good.
>You're fine with regular cycles of famine and disease killing off millions?
Yes.

>>21817608
Modern life is psychologically devastating and utterly meaningless.
And this will not last. Either the system collapses under its own weight or the elites decide the useless eaters need to die. You are fucked both ways.

>>21817570
It doesn't matter if technology progresses at a 75% reduced rate; the destination is identical. This is the same as the marxist cope and it's categorically retarded.
The only way for an anarchist society to prevent growth and the need for technology to accommodate that growth in population is through libertarian paternalistic type social engineering or infringement on the rights of the individual. In any other case, the utopia would feel morally compelled to develop technologies to "increase sustainability," improve agricultural efficiency, cure or prevent diseases, etc. Then, even if material conditions in this respect improve by means of an already wildly improbable utopia, the issue of the 'reckless ride into the unknown' remains in force.
>>21817583
Government will always tend to centralize. Industrialism is what allows large organizations a greater capacity to preserve themselves from revolution through advanced technologies that revolutionaries and small powers don't have the economic capability to develop, or through global telecommunications propaganda that wouldn't be feasible by word of mouth.
>>21817608
>Billions must die
>Okay. For what
They will die simply as a matter of fact. The only thing that allows the population to be so great is industrial agriculture. Without synthetic fertilizers, refrigeration, and pesticides, Earth MAY be able to support 5 billion humans.

>Nearly all wild game is dead. That can't support any real population at all.
Of course. Almost everyone will die, populations will equalize, game will recover, and things will get back to the agricultural level. More than likely the form of governance will be agrarian monarchy.
>You're fine with regular cycles of famine and disease killing off millions?
Yes.
>When 1 in 4 deaths in Europe were caused by Tuberculosis? When people wore rags and smelled like shit all the time for the benefit of a few individuals? Hell that's basically just the dystopic future you fear right now, except with more leisure time. Do you know what kind of shit European peasants ate? They got meat once a week, and it was salted pork. It was fucking awful.
Your view of the past is whig history. And yes- being a medieval serf is preferable to being a modern wagie. I don't really care if some rich faggots are skimming my labor now and I don't care if a lord takes all of the profits of my farm.
Besides, disease and other issues were primarily problems that (primarily freemen) from cities experienced. Freemen had the choice to face insane danger and disease or go back to the country. In an industrial world, the effects of city development are omnipresent, and the extremely sparse regions where land is relatively undeveloped are heavily controlled by either government regulation enforced by technological means or roving warbands using industrial technology.
>>21817624
>He had some kind of pathology against university professors. Dunno why.
cont

>>21817608
>>21817624
>He had some kind of pathology against university professors. Dunno why.
>I dont think he got the recognition he felt he deserved and i think he had problems socializing that made it harder for him to be successful when compared to others.
Kaczynski's primary motivation was to become notorious for the purposes of propagating his ideology. It worked, but that's not the point. >>21817432 He selected targets that were reachable on foot, low security, and as connected to technology as was possible.
When examining targets that are responsible for the greatest contributions to technological or scientific development, you are really left with CEOs, government bureaucrats, scientists, and academics.
Of all of these, academics tended to be the highwst-profile and most easily accessible.

Kaczynski's secondary targets were airlines, because he identified them as primary contributors to the functioning of global industrialism. I would say that rail-lines also function as adequate targets, but I digress.
Kaczynski's final targets were unlucky. When there wasn't any high-profile target to attack with a reasonable chance of escaping detection, Kaczynski went after "third degree" contributors to technological development, such as those that democratized access to certain technological implements; this would include the computer store clerk.

>>21817290
>I have some doubts that Ellul believed the deaths of almost everyone on Earth, which is necessary for a reversal of industrialism and a return to natural agriculture
So you're insane, got it.

>>21817608
>regions where land is relatively undeveloped are heavily controlled by either government regulation enforced by technological means or roving warbands using industrial technology
To specify, technophiles enjoy saying "move to Africa or Brazil" without understanding the reality of those regions. For one, most "tribals" in those areas experience a great deal of interaction with industrial society, and for another, they are typically traumatic victims of "bandits" that are greatly empowered by technology. In Brazil, it is a common tragedy for large amounts of tribal children, boys and girls, to be kidnapped en masse by armed cartels and sold into brutal sexual slavery. They were especial targets due to the fact that they are essentially non-existent in society, without a paper trail or any evidence of their birth or life. Bolsonaro addressed this (IIRC) and a specific case of a child that had all of her teeth broken out and was fed an all liquid diet to be more "useful."
Bandits and highwaymen were a major problem in the past, but they had to fight with the same sorts of weaponry available to villagers. So no, we can't go into le forest.

>>21818045
Pick one: Industrialism or a reduction in population by at minimum 4 billion.

>>21818073
I choose 500 million in perpetual harmony with nature.

>>21818133
Great, now convince 7.5 billion to stop reproducing, primarily rural Africans, Indians, and Chinese.
Hmm...

>>21818158
Convincing people is not necessary.

>>21814170
Terrible post all around. Don't even know where to begin.

>>21818203
Right. Delusional.

>>21814213
>by inaction he would be willingly allowing humans to more closely approach "the worst possible outcome."
Why does Ted erroneously think that if he doesn't have his revolution that industrial society will just consolidate forever and cement its eternal rule on Earth? Why doesn't the thought occur to him that the system will eventually eat itself up due to the unsustainability of it all on a social/economic/manufacturing level and everything will collapse anyway? You say yourself that must metal deposits have been used up and yet you don't consider this?

Why was Evola the only one able to deduce that the only non-LARP realistic solution is to just sit back and try to preserve as much of your own soul as possible before the entire thing just falls on its own colossal weight?

>>21818242
Diet, injections and injuctions - Sir Bertrand Russell

>>21818698
>Why does Ted erroneously think that if he doesn't have his revolution that industrial society will just consolidate forever and cement its eternal rule on Earth? Why doesn't the thought occur to him that the system will eventually eat itself up due to the unsustainability of it all
He believes it will probably collapse. He dedicates multiple chapters to "collapse theory," but the problem is that it isn't certain. Industrial society is very good at adaptation and rapid innovations are being made in preparation for post-oil and recycling based industrialism.

The more time that elapses, the greater the possibility that some horrific and irrevsersible development occurs. Genetically modified humans, environmentally permanent pollutants (some forms of plastic may be this. There is evidence that some will NEVER degrade under any Earth conditions), accidental superweapon, etc. Kaczynski believes that the three outcomes are
>Collapse
Sooner is better for the above reasons
>Industrial Society Utilitarian End™
Modification of human psychology or physiology to permanently prevent suffering in response to industrial conditions. This is horrific in the humanist sense and it's compatible with communism/marxism/etc.
>Industrial Society Bad End™
Anything else. This is horrific in any sense, and in a way it's similar to what Marxist/Communists/Socialists fear.

>>21814213
>"I killed and maimed people for altruistic reasons"
kek

>>21818883
Yeah, same thing Marxists say during their revolutions, same thing the Americans said during the war for independence and every war thereafter, same thing any revolutionary says, same thing a home defender says when there's a break in, etc.

>>21818735
>Industrial society is very good at adaptation and rapid innovations are being made in preparation for post-oil and recycling based industrialism.
This is all bullshit propaganda though. Electric cars and other supposedly "environmentally-friendly" developments do nothing to preserve resources and in many cases are even more resource-intensive than their conventional counterparts.

Its all a smokescreen to prepare for scarcity. With electric cars for example, you can control via the electric grid who drives, for how long, and where and when. It'll also be out of reach for the common population, transportation infrastructure "experts" are already talking about how in the near future only high-earners will be able to drive, etc.

I've used electric cars as an example but the point stands for every other "novel" technology. What current cutting-edge developments in industry are trying to do is to cut the pace of consumption and preserve an undisturbed level of technological access only for elite earners of a certain socioeconomic class. It is by no means consolidating a permanent state of industrialism for mankind. Its simply a desperate squabbling over the little that remains.

>>21818890
That's my point, it's just a thin veneer covering the true reason, they just want to show the ultimate dominance of murdering their fellow human beings. With Ted, he knew that mail bombs have way too many variables and that he was essentially just going to kill random nobodies, but he didn't care, as long as he was killing someone that was enough for him. All the intellectual self flagellation was secondary, and all the people shilling for Ted are laughably ignorant, conned by a psychopath's rationalization for his sick impulses.

>>21818895
Too schizo. They're overstating how good their innovations are, but they are trying to innovate. They certainly don't care about CO2 levels, this is just an effort to reduce the consumption of natural resources.
Just because the I.S. hasn't adapted yet doesn't mean it won't. Either way it will only get worse the longer things go on.

>>21818907
How privileged of you.

>>21818907
>>21818907
Seeing a particular huge difference between Kacyznski, and figures like Bush or Obama, or CEOs of multinational corporations or international bankers you rarely hear of or consciously consider much, Apple who profits from Chinese slave labor or Nestle profiting from their African slave labor, and the like, betrays a deep hypocrisy. Kacyznski kills or maims about 2-3 dozen people, “chuds,” “incels,” and “radicalized bigots” online support or venerate him, and you lose your mind. But the leading politicians, financiers, bankers, and corporate execs of industrial (and now post-industrial, the computer and AI age) civilization support, plan out and fund policies that lead to the deaths of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions or even more, simply for profit and/or for what some high-leveled globalist intellects convinced them is “ultimately altruistic,” “for the good of humanity,” “the good of civilization,” “the good of the earth,” and “you sleep.”

>>21819478
I believe that Bush, Obama and likely all major CEOs are actively evil. What was your point again?

>>21819602
>>21819602
My point is the evilest people in the world have some minor (but still vested) interest in making you think Kacyznski and his supporters are “the real enemies” or the chic punching-bag (when it’s not some Iraqi Muslim, covid-vaccine skeptic, or Trump-supporting 2020 election denier), fomenting a massively disproportional focus on their evil as opposed to, say, the evils of the likes of Bush, Obama, & co.

Kacyznski is like the Palestinian terrorist or Hamas-supporter manipulated for the public image and support of Israel, or like some dissenter in the Soviet Union whose evils and lunacy are focused on in the Pravda as a distraction from the evils of the Soviet Union itself. (Marxist-Leninism and Stalinism, Zionism, U.S. foreign policy, the Democratic and Republican parties, and generic “wealthy 1% types” have all been equally targeted in my posts, I hope, so one can’t accuse me of being especially “biased” for or against any one of these ideologies, except perhaps towards Kacyznski himself right now while I play devil’s advocate for him.)

There is a relatively secluded, gate-kept way of gaining some degree of fame, popularity, academic, literary, journalistic and/or generally intellectual support in the modern day in the West. Kacyznski probably would not have fit into this slot (of getting talked about and considered as much as he was) if he did not come in with his maverick (although indisputably, very unsavory-seeming) methods. And even these methods were, on a national, international, geopolitical, global and cosmic scale, a drop in a bucket compared to the untold deaths and suffering caused by the same ideology and peoples he was fighting against.

(Compassionate addendum for FBI-agents who read my posts: I am a staunch pacifist and ultimately end up disagreeing with Kaczysnki’s violent methods; I say this in a spirit of inspiring discussion and out of my enjoyment of playing “devil’s advocate” for disliked or minority views.)

>>21814170
>Ellul was a technology critic too but was balanced by his faith.
Fat lot of luck his "faith" did him. Faith didn't stop the march of the machines. At least Ted had the courage to fight for his beliefs against impossible odds.

>>21814213
He didn't properly "fight back" or at least didn't do it with visible efficiency. He definitely never calculated like you imagined, other wise he would have done something that would make a difference

>>21817998
>And yes- being a medieval serf is preferable to being a modern wagie.
The difference is that monetary economies have economic freedom. No one has to work a terrible wagie job unless they lack the skill to do anything else. A medieval serf is stuck on his lot no matter how he feels about it. And people he loves will drop dead regularly from all manner of disease, in war time they will starve, their food and clothing and living conditions will be absolutely garbage, and religion is his only real safeguard against all this pain.

These are horrible living conditions. Your speculation that life feels slightly more "meaningful" does not matter if millions of people die regularly due to war, famine, disease, and live overall terrible lives. Within the past few decades, tens of millions of Chinese moved to the cities to work because being stuck on a peasant farm was STILL worse than working a 9-9-6 work schedule at a grueling industrial job (Seriously dwell on that). Modern life is an upgrade in almost every conceivable way. If you still disagree, honestly it's a personal problem. Go to church if you think life is empty.

>>21815983
"El que es perico donde sea es verde", Ted would have reached the same conclusion regardless of Ellul or not, because it was not him that he criticized but faggotry. Faggots should never be excused.

>>21819871
>medieval serf is stuck on his lot no matter how he feels about it
This simply isn't true.
We have documents of lords and bishops seethint and trying to expropriate a certain knight's land because his grandfather was a serf who escaped and managed to be knighted through military valor.
Free cities themselves had a slogan "city hair makes you free", in basically each italian free city if you resided there for at least a year you became a citizen and hence freeman for life.
Land serfs weren't slaves, they also had way more violent revolutions and uprising against the upper classes than it is even imaginable today

>>21816860

>>21820384
>Why don't you go live in an African jungle and get raped by Toyota riding warbands if you hate technology so much?

>>21819669
Well to push back against Ted’s claims, irrespective of his methods, shouldn’t we talk about the quality of life changes an industrial society has created for billions of people? Billions of human beings have been lifted out of poverty via industrialization, as measured by economic growth. With that in mind, how can we weigh the lives of future human beings who suffer the consequences of potential collapses in industrialization against the value of current human lives who benefit?

mk ultra made ted mentally ill
he became mentally ill after participating in cia meth experiments, this is very well documented, he wasnt like this before, and he didnt engage in violence or antisocial behavior before

all anprim ideology is fundamentally retarded and mentally ill
you ask anti tech fags about their foreign policy and they instantly shut up
>lets wreck all our factories and heavy industry
>china rolls up with tanks and jets
>get conquered
>get put in gulags even worse than present tech society
anprims simple cant win
they say their nonsense needs to be global to work, but then you ask them how the fuck do they coordinate this global conspiracy? with smoke signals? messenger pigeons?
this makes anprim shut up permanently

>>21821981
Money is not an estimate for quality of life except in societies that necessitate money. If you have a household that grows all of your own food, you spin your own thread and weave clothew, manufacture your own tools, and spear fish for most of your protein, selling only the bare minimum of your production to pay taxes, you would be considered horribly impoverished by every economic metric.
A wagie that owns literally nothing, making 9 dollars an hour, living in a homeless shelter would be "economically uplifted" in comparison. Using economic production as a measure of success or happiness only makes sense in socities based on monetary trade.

>>21822003
No, blowing up random things is not the solution. There are a few "places" that the entire world relies on. A tedfag would want to make them not operational anymore.
Also, Ted is not an anarcho-primitivist. He is not an anarchist or a primitivist.

>>21822064
Saying a society without money cannot have their economic success measured is redundant. What I am saying is that in places like China, which had money, increased industrialization lifted a billion people out of poverty. This is measurable. The claim that a society where this isn’t measurable is ‘better’ than a society where you can measure QoL is conjecture. If you have no way of measuring it then there is no real argument to be made for it being better really beyond “I believe.” I suppose I just don’t see your point to be a refutation, the fact of the matter is that we know and can measure the effect of industrialization on billions of people’s lives, and it is a positive one (in an aggregate sense.)

>>21822481
I mean that economic success is pointless if you don't use money.

>>21822551
yes but if success cannot be measured without it as you say, neither can failure. So a non-industrial society without money has no evidence to support it being ‘better.’

>>21822481
>>21822551
Case in point: the WEF likes to scream about all these people living on "a dollar a day" but if you were to see them, they'd have everything you'd expect. A home, diverse foods, family, clothes spun by the local tailor, etc. On paper, they're "extremely poor" and they have no economic success, but they don't need thousands of dollars per month to survive. A dollar a day is enough to purchase needles, a new shovel from time to time, perhaps new boots, etc. Take these tribals and such, and place them in San Francisco to work a wagie job and although they have more "economic success" on paper, they are objectively worse off materially.
The real reason economic development matters is because it's useful for a centralized government. I'm not saying economic success is BAD, God no. In the context of industrialized nations where independence from capital is unreasonable, it is obviously essential.

>>21814213
I think Ellul rightly understood and you fail to understand that the only real way to dismantle the machine is for the engineer to put down the wrench and keyboard and pick up the holy book and paint brush. The inward disposition is a pre-requisite and as Spengler said it takes “the engineer (priest of the machine) detecting the satanism in the machine”. You didn’t know this because you didn’t read Ellul and didn’t know that half of his writing is not about technology but rather religion.

>>21822576
Most economists define agricultural communities as being in “extreme poverty” by default.

>>21822576
What if it’s more insidious than that? What if these people really just don’t understand the point you’re making because it’s not how they would perceive things? In their mind, moving to San Francisco is better in their mind and indisputably so.

>>21822636
Here's a later post in the thread, including a small quotation of Kaczynski's critique of Ellul. >>21817290
The spiritual revolution itself is retarded. The progression of technique is categorically impossible to stop without the destruction of all intelligent life.
Kaczynski decided to compromise by reversing it temporarily. A spiritual revolution is useless, unless it is with the literal eschaton.

>>21822648
Which is my point. Their material conditions may be much greater than the average wagie with a job and car, but their only metric for determining this is monetary trade.

>>21814170

>>21822670
That is disinfo. More interestingly, what kind of user has such an interest in a non-factor ideology that they waste time writing fan fiction to combat it? It's very federal in nature.

>>21822663
yes and for the other type of society you describe it cannot be measured at all,

>>21822747
Stop being retarded on purpose.

>>21822747
Dude he fucked dogs. He tortured small animals. Now he's getting BBC. he was a lame loser, copied all his shit from John Zerzan, Eric Hoffer and Jacques Ellul whom he regurgitates at length. He was surrounded by people who had lower IQs but who actually ranched, married wives, raised children, and had real lives. He seethed, would vandalise their homes when they were away and called it "revolution" lol. He was considered too unstable for trans surgery, so he's a rejected tranny as well.
I mean, read his regurgitated stuff if you want. But don't pretend that he is either original or sane. Personally I'll stick with Ellul and Hoffer.

>>21821981
Very understandable and common view but almost every apparent “benefit” of industrial civilization, has been or is balanced out by a or multiple downsides to it (usually propagandistically and deliberately covered up in the mainstream media, politics and the education system due to the meddling of lobbyists, corporate ownership and influence over the news and politicians, vested interests like Big Pharma running propaganda, etc.)

I’m rather sleepy and feel too lazy to go into great depth about numerous examples. Kacyznski gives the good basic primers in his manifesto, including, for instance, such as of massive mental health issues in the industrialized/modernized world and patching a bandaid on this with the (for-profit and highly corrupted) psychiatric system/Big Pharma, paradoxically so, especially when compared to, say, indigenous tribal peoples who according to us “live in a state of extreme poverty in the harshness of nature” but whom anthropologists note are often much more psychologically stable and happy than we are.

More food production, more calories, access to reputedly “clean water,” etc APPARENT “better health and nutrition”due to this but then counteracted by the rise of hyper-processed foods, chemical additives, xenoestrogens (leached from plastics as well as hormones urinated by women on birth control into the sewer system which is filtered into our water, psychotropic and other medications too), etc. (Also see declining fertility and catastrophically declining sperm counts in males.) Fucked up birth defects. Youth having a catastrophic amount of ADHD/anxiety/depression/and/or autism diagnoses in industrialized nations. EMF radiation from cell-phone towers, WiFi and the like thought to lead to harm (bigger consensus on this in Europe — several nations there IIRC have banned placing cell-towers next to children’s schools, for instance, because of them actually seriously caring at least a bit more about their kids and peoples and doing the studies into it, whereas in the US with capture of the regulatory boards and funded “scientists” who give the results their corporate donors want to hear, this is “covered up” as “paranoid tinfoil hat nutter pseudoscience”). The capacity for more industrialized, highly technologically advanced, bureaucratized and/or systematized mass murder of people (nuclear weaponry, depleted uranium bullets, Gulf War syndrome, Chernobyl, East Palestine OH vinyl chloride incident, bioweapons research that may have led to everything from a more fucked up version/outbreak of Lyme Disease in 1975 in Lyme, Connecticut miles within the Plum Island Animal Disease Center studying bioweaponry, to the likely Wuhan lab leak from the lab that was studying coronaviruses). Closely related, various genocides like the Holodomor, the Soviets against their own people, the Holocaust, the Cambodian genocide, Mao’s Great Leap Forward, etc.

Kek I wrote the massive post anyway.

>>21822785
Federal post

>>21821981
>>21822831
Rising cancer rates in industrialized nations also very closely tied to these examples. Also, for the first time in many decades, life expectancy recently in the US has started to statistically decline, and I imagine it holds true for many industrialized nations, as well. According to the WEF (fuck them but using them as a source anyway kek) and various statistical studies, this trend started in at least 2014, hence before the COVID pandemic. So I suspect it’s the result of accumulated decades of this toxic crap (+ pollution and climate change, how could I forget about that? not meant to sound like Greta Thunberg as I also think “climate totalitarianism” is a probable upcoming threat and the “conservative kooks” have a point about that). Collapse of natural biodiversity, extinction of species, mass deforestation. Forever chemicals. Islands of trash.

It’s like someone using hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars or more on a credit card and living the good life for quite a while, until realizing they can’t pay it back and they’re fucked. Or a big loan they can’t pay back, to put it more simply. That’s what the higher standards of living and “raising countless people out of poverty” has been built on imö, we lived the good life for a while collectively, but this artificially inflated standard was built on a lot of quicksand or fault-lines and seems destined to collapse in unpredictable and terrifying ways as the century progresses.

>>21822864
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/us-life-expectancy-decline/

>>21822831
>emf towers causing cancer

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt before but I’ll stop now because no one defeat the power of Dunning-Kruger.

>>21822831
>>21822864
This kills the technophile

I just don't see the point in anything Kaczynski was doing. If we don't destroy industrial society, billions will die. But if we do destroy industrial society, billions will die. What's actually at stake here? What does anyone really stand to lose if he fails or gain if he succeeds?

>>21822899
Heavy projection here, mate. I suppose the governments and health officials of Israel, Belgium, France, Denmark, Switzerland, and numerous other European countries and around the world are also all idiots for doing it?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935122011781

You ever heard of the big phrase in public health policy called the “precautionary principle”? (Of course, this is de facto “tossed out” in the US due to capture of regulatory boards by corporate donors and lobbyists, and a bigger thing in European nations).

https://ehtrust.org/reduce-cell-phone-radiation-exposure-list-of-countries-official-recommendations/

>>21823062
That humans won't become cogs in the industrial machine, or at the very least, we will prevent further contamination of the environment with forever chemicals or the invention of an even worse environmentally permanent pollutant.
>>21823078
He will call anything a conspiracy. He's a reverse schizo-schizo. Completely schizophrenic in his attempt to refute perceived "conspiracies."

>>21823078
There is no evidence they cause cancer, I studied medical physics so I am qualified to comment on this. If they can cause cancer it is via an action we do not yet understand. We can get into the minutia of this but the fact of the matter is there is no widespread cancer increase in the general population with a link to cell towers. With that said should you directly sleep and live 3 m from a radar array within its FoV? No, of course not! And that is exactly why countries have guidelines about habitation with respect to large emf towers. But the bold claim that these towers with tiny intensities at the level they interact with the average person (and at their relatively large wavelengths,) cause widespread cancer is disingenuous.

That said, it is also disingenuous of me to disregard everything you said off of one statement. It’s just it happens to be something I know more than the average person about.

>>21823257
Thanks for the response. I felt a great amount of respect for it when you noted your expertise in medical physics, and some warranted humility, but also had the underlying thought, “Well, that wasn’t the only part of my post.” Then you mentioned

>That said, it is also disingenuous of me to disregard everything you said off of one statement

So I feel a great degree of mutual agreement. I can’t claim to be an accredited expert on biology, physics, medicine, etc., a credentialed scientist, I’m simply a verbose eccentric who likes consuming large amounts of unconventional information, viewpoints, studies, etc., both through the medium of printed books and online.

This was one particular book I highly liked and which inspired this line of thought in me, but from decades ago (hence perhaps outdated), and, even though it has an “M.D.” listed as its main author, still probably is not 100% accurate (is ANYONE 100% accurate, if they’re speaking or writing for long enough?).

Hypothetical/devil’s advocate addendum: always the possibility of causing subclinical/not-immediately-obvious but still real deterioration of people’s health; as well as of the scenario you yourself note, of this being “through a mechanism we don’t understand yet.” Very cliche historical parallel to this: cigarettes didn’t cause lung cancer and numerous other harmful effects and had ads run for them with doctors claiming this, until all of a sudden they didn’t and cigarette companies became demonized & banned from running such advertising/propaganda, also even induced to blatantly make clear the harmful effects of their products on their packaging with labels and warnings.

>>21823460
Thanks, I’ll give this book a look, I understand the interest with “outlier” science.

One health risk of high voltage power lines that does have data supporting it is sound pollution. I do not have a good link/resource to it on hand but it is very interesting to read about.