/lit/ - Literature

>>22457438

Also, does anyone know of any active organizations in line with Ted's message in this book?

Absolutely glowing

>>22457480
Tired meme. No one cares about lil anon's teenage anarchist tendencies on 4channel.org.

>>22457480

Except if you actually read the book, Ted makes it explicit that all activity of such organizations should be strictly legal.

>>22457496

Ted isn't an anarchist, though.

>>22457496
I'm merely saying that nobody is monitoring anything. Perhaps on /pol/ but def not here

>>22457506
I mean the writings aside from ISAIF would be whatever he managed to communicate from prison, it's not like he could plainly tell you to do illegal things, read between the lines

>>22457531

I think independent of whether Ted was trying to communicate subliminal threats of violence in his writing, he clearly sees a use for legal activities as well, which is the subject of this thread.

>>22457523

It'd be funny if a bunch of feds were monitoring this board and all they ended up with was an appreciation for the Greeks.

>>22457438
I've read it. IMO it's his best book with his best arguments but they're based on society-level arguments of why a technological society is bad long term instead of individual-level arguments of why living in a technological society is unfulfilling.

>>22457675

Have you ever read anything that deals with the individual-level effects of technology in a similar vein.

I've read Ellull's The Technological Society which touches on it in parts, but it's not the focus.

>>22457438
Ted's collapse theory is weak.

https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/kaczynskis-collapse-theoryhtml

>>22457445
Wilderness Front
www.wildernessfront.com

>>22457854
>literal who twitter retard says something
>must be true

>>22457902

Thank you. That was exactly what I was looking for.

>>22457854
He obviously didn't read it if his main argument to make people even more reliant on tech. Besides, imaginary technology isn't an argument.

>>22457496
You are asked for "active organizations in line with [domestic terrorist]'s message". You are glowing.

>>22457523
Monitoring is much less efficient than coming in and starting the discussion. If someone put a gun to your head and demanded that you find a bunch of people plotting violence/terrorist groups/etc, would you not use 4chan as a honeypot? It's hilariously naive to not consider the possibility that a person asking for active organizations that support a domestic terrorist's message may not be in good faith. I'm sorry you've been so sheltered.

>>22457992
>>22457998
The type of organization that Kaczynski outlines in Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How is strictly legal.
"The pattern is consistent and the lesson is clear: A radical group can never safely assume that its plans or its activities are unknown to the government. Thus, a legal revolutionary organization is well advised to remain exactly that: strictly legal. Any sort of dabbling in illegal activities is extremely dangerous. "
-Anti-Tech Revolution, page 184
"Since we’ve already emphasized that a revolutionary organization committed to open, political action should maintain strict legality (section 27), it follows that the members of such an organization should avoid any involvement in illegal actions by radical environmentalists."
-Anti-Tech Revolution, page 185

>>22457438
That book is the most mind-expanding book i have ever read. It will stay with me for a long time.

>>22457438
I can't wait to see how tye story ends in Technological Slavery, Vol. II

https://fitchmadison.com/product/technological-slavery-volume-two-tbdtheodore-john-kaczynski/

>>22457992

In line with his message in a book explicitly designed to only engage in legal action.

>>22457998

Except Kaczynski foresaw that, and even anticipates government agents spying on such an organization, which is why he explicitly warns that everything about that organization must be by the book.

Regardless, even if there are feds in this thread, why can't we discuss a book on this literature board?

>>22458631

That's somewhat how I feel about Technological Slavery, although the format of that book is discordant. Anti-Tech Revolution is more cohesive, though.

>>22457982
What's wrong with people being more reliant on tech if people get to experience superhuman bliss because of it?

>>22457860
LOL You have got to be joking! That is the most desperate non-criticism criticism I've ever read. They guy just says it "seems crazy".. no argumentation, no evidence. Then he completely glosses over all the arguments Kaczynski made about the impossibility of rationally predicting and controlling society. If that's the best thing critics of Kaczynski can come up with they truly are desperate.

>>22461632

People need to be able to tell themselves that Kaczynski is crazy because if he's sane, that is far more unsettling.