/lit/ - Literature

>>22745563
No

>>22745563
I wish that people would finally realize that Grothendiek was the real mathematician turned schizo recluse we should listen to

>>22745563
I full on chatted with my coworkers about him and we all thought that he made some good points. I think my mates have just seen that stuff on Instagram or wherever. I don't think any of them have actually read Industrial Society and its Future, but I think they associate Kaczynski with the feelings of discomfort and disgust evoked by the less savory qualities of the modern world

>>22745563
His ideas are more popular than him which is probably what he wanted.

he's always been pretty popular for a terrorist. even in the 90s when he was in trial, public opinion of him wasn't that negative. he simply raises too many obviously correct points to be written off, and he'll only be more and more vindicated with time. i'm glad ted was in prison where he could not see how bad things have got. i like to think he was only vaguely aware of the technological progress that happened while he was locked up

>>22745602
everyone who has ever read ISAIF that im aware of agrees with most of it (definitely not all but most)

>>22745614
this.

but let's step back and just think of the ideas he expressed. it's the ideas that matter, not the person. the ideas describe real THINGS that are happening in the world. things that affect all of us. if the ideas are correct, then they will inevitably gain more and more traction until they either manifest in the form of an anti-tech vanguard revolution that he advocated, or the system will evolve in the ways he predicted (unless it collapses). So whether or not he is popular personally is irrelevant. whether his ideas gain popularity I think is inevitable because the things he described were accurate. I also think it is inevitable that we see a massive crackdown in censorship and repression of his ideas and similar anti-tech ideas as modern society attempts to completely suppress any antagonism towards the technological society itself.

We are already seeing the rise of uncompromisingly anti-tech organizations that agree with the basic premises Kaczynski laid out. Things such as Anti-Tech Collective and Anti-Tech Quarterly, and Anti-Tech Resistance in Europe (www.antitechresistence.com) or Wilderness Front in America (www.wildernessfront.com). So yes, I think he is becoming more popular, but as with every truly radical and revolutionary movement, the ideas will never become "mainstream". The Bolsheviks in Russia for example never reached the size of more than a few thousand members, yet they ended up controlling more than 100 million people. They were always ostracized and were always a despised and repressed minoriuty. A similar thing is likely with people who agree with Kaczynski. They will be despized and feared and hated until either the system collapses naturally, they are repressed and the system rushed to its logical conclusion of control over all aspects of the living earth, or they will knock out critical infrastructure or unleash a series of pandemics or other disruptions that the system collapses--in other words, they win. But they win not buy controlling society like the Bolsheviks attempted, but in collapsing it.

>>22745563
Yes, despite the fact most of the people talking about him have never read him.

Try talking to a Ted K fedposting zoomer about organization-dependent technology and they'll look at you like you're an alien

>>22745563
yes. the video from wendigoon gave him an even bigger boost

>>22745635
This is a new research paper by an academic that basically admits Kaczynski is possibly correct, and that his portrayal in the media as either a deranged sicko or a simply evil murderer is flawed: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10282580.2023.2279312

If even timid, conformist academics are starting to admit what he said could be true, this should hive every thoughtful person pause to soberly consider the ideas Kaczynski expressed.

How many of his books are worth reading unironically?

There was some math paper that credit some of Ted's studies as an source with saying he was quote most known for his other works... gotta be one of my favorite tedfacts

Also he had fantasies about raping people just wanted to throw that out there

>>22745656
unironically all of them. But if you are new and completely uninitiated, then I would start with Technological Slavery and then read Anti-Tech Revolution.

But if you have already read the manifesto (Technological Slavery also contains the manifesto as one section) then i would start with reading Anti-Tech Revolution. Regardless of whether or not you agree with Kaczynski's main arguments, it will give you a lot of food for thought and force you to think in novel ways about our world and how societies evolve.

>>22745656
None desu, his ideas about society are pretty average Nietzsche style thought you find in your local garage punk rock band's albums, the whole anti tech shit forgets the real issue are humans who misuse their own tech

>>22745675
>Also he had fantasies about raping people just wanted to throw that out there

source?

>>22745681
give us an example please. quote something from TK and explain your reasoning.

>>22745687
Let me pull up my manifesto pdf real quick

>>22745687
Ok im not gonna spend half an hour to get the exact citation, but a strong focus on the manifesto is how "society is no longer built for the individual, rather, the individual is built for society", which is true, and blaming leftist collectivism for it is true too, and saying that autonomy has been taken away is true too

Truly a shame about anyone in the "social misfit yet moderatly intellectual" category already thought that up, the punk rock example I gave is not a joke but just stating a lot of punk rock bands say that exact shit and thats funny

His view of the natural world as an escape from that system is true, in fact I have considered it myself, but overall his so called "surrogate activities" have about as much value in this question as his naturalistic lifestyle, so what if I want to be a grill dad who likes football and goes playing tennis every once in a while, it gives me fullfiment, that section is one of the main things I disagree, ive had talks with autists before as shit as banal as airplane engines and weevil beetles can make someone happy with their current state of affairs and lead a fullfiled life

>>22745656
all of them. there's only three and none of them are particularly long. just read his whole bibliography, you won't be disappointed

>>22745715
Tldr a lot of the manifesto is dedicated to stating facts a bunch of people before him already notices going as back as over a century before him, stating modern facts, saying "you arent truly happy doing X" when its just projection, he himself used to do arts and crafts and parttake in writing that sounds very surrogatey to me, rightfully shitting on leftists and conservatives, and saying how billions must die before le technology evil AI takes control of the world (even if AI can only mimic human input anf behaviout and is incapable of making decisions before a human tells him to get the general idea of it)

>>22745715
>blaming leftist collectivism for it

False. You've misunderstood the manifesto. Kaczynski doesn't BLAME leftists for this. He discusses leftism because it is a collection of related psychological types that represents symptomatic suffering caused by the industrial system, and because leftism is a powerful force that discourages and hinders genuine revolution against the system: which is why he is so emphatic to warn his readers about them.

The manifesto outlines how society evolves due to objective conditions and natural selection, and that the industrial society is the product of autonomous forces outside of any human control. So it is not the result of any leftist political activity (or rightist, or any political intention whatsoever).

With regard to your point on surrogate activities: this is weak. How do you know that these people stutying beetles for example would not be vastly more fulfilled if they instead were focused on non-surrogate activities related to their life-and-death circumstances? It's a counterfactual claim you're making. Whereas Kaczynski bases his power process and surrogate activity observations in psychological and anthropological studies. Regardless, Kaczynski never says that NOBODY is content to fritter away their time in surrogate activities. He is asserting that for the majority of people these surrogate activities do not bring lasting tranquility and fulfillment. And there is abundant psychological and social data to back up his position. But one doesn't really need to get into the details of the studies, one just needs to look around at the widespread suffering of modern humans relative to the contentment and fulfillment of primitive peoples.

>>22745563
one can only hope that is the case

>>22745733

>>22745733
Your view on AI is wrong and typical from someone who doesn't grasp its capabilities.

>>22745733
Based retard

>>22745675

>>22745771
classic

>>22745757
The world elites are constantly pushing for AI regulation and trying their best to villanize it via journos

Truth is AI puts mediocre people in line, when AI can do journalism about as well as a human it forces people to be creative, break from the system and get a higher degree of knowledge, the last thing the gov and corpos want are people becoming more intellectual

AI wont turn people into machines, because people already are, AI just gaslights that people are machines and the "NPC issue" by taking jobs away and being about as clever as people, so they want to turn it down before it stirs up change

>>22745788
>>22745757

They are pushing for regulations to minimize scraping and decentralized usage after they already scraped petabytes of data and trained their LLModels (and are poised to pay multimillion fines when needed)
Everything else you wrote is not worth commenting

>>22745748
Nvm youre right on the first point, I kind of phrased it poorly too, I meant that leftism evokes and perpetuates the issues he said, but again thats not your point and I agree

Second point is just kind of epistemological, like sure these activities might or might not bring fullfiment and compare to earlier stages of man, but how can you be sure its them not being fullfiling rather than the world being more complex, tribal man didnt need to worry about beauty standarts, politics, taxes, religion, education jobs and all, its not the activies "bring less happiness", but just that there is way more dogshit happening for it to make us happy (he says exactly this too so kudos)

His whole revolution agaisnt the modern world idea in scale is just flawed and impossible, his alternative lifestyle and living regardless of how society operates on a smaller scale and liking the little things is way more optimal and does not involve wooden pipe bombs and killing people

"The modern world will catch up", shut up, its all in your head, become a lobotomised brainless jellyfish who does not care and you will finally be happier

>>22745656
All of them, they aren't even very long.

>>22745808
your honest.

but your whole position seams to stem from defeatism. and the reference to "pipe bombs and killing people" betrays your personal animus. most revolutions involve violence. george washington killed more than 3,000 people. for what? taxation without representation??? and yet Ted is demonized for killing three people when industrial civilization kills millions and will eventually destroy most life on earth. you can disagree with all this, but the discussion on the morality of TK's actions hinges on the validity of his reasoning on technological society and its future and not a priori attacks on his personal history or use of violence.

>alternative lifestyle and living regardless of how society operates on a smaller scale and liking the little things is way more optimal

This is an empty platitude. The entire body of ted's manifesto and his two books are arguments why this is not even a viable option for the long term. So you would have to deal with these arguments without just stating opinions.

>>22745563
>kazincsky was a manlet
holy shit no wonder he wanted to become a tranny then went on a homicidal rampage. not like he had anything to lose

>>22745563
AI will make him more popular eventually.

>>22745563
>talks about wanting to murder a small child
>grabs gun and aims it at her head
>walks away after seeing her mom
This is the good guy?

>>22746125
Literally 0 percent of his violence did anything, nor would have. Please explain how bombing airplanes and murdering a computer shop owner helped anything.

>>22746631
It's OK. The kid was a glownigger.

>>22746647
Ted is a glownigger good goy. No different than FBI mass shooters. Hurting innocent people rather than bankers or politicians.

>>22746635
I agree with personally finding a lot that was morally repugnant in his actions. However, to play devil’s advocate, the attacks brought his works fame (or infamy, ultimately the same thing in terms of getting publicity) which he wouldn’t have had otherwise, as well as getting his works published more easily. He was a former mathematics professor, so not even as intimately tied with sectors of academia that could help publish such philosophical works/works overlapping with political and social criticism. And even if he were able to get them published in an ordinary way, they are likely to have become academic obscurities, regardless of their merits — for instance, Ellul is a great and fascinating thinker who writes about similar things, but isn’t a household name and doesn’t have that same influence and iconicity in pop culture.

This also brings up the “freedom fighter vs. terrorist” dichotomy, which, as we know, is often based on media-backed social conditioning and the victors writing history, as >>22746125 astutely notes about George Washington and the founding fathers of the U.S. in general.

It’s possible for someone whose actions you strongly disagree with morally to have some very intelligent things to say, but who knows, he could’ve been a fed the whole time and the whole thing a psy-op, or maybe just turn out wrong and industrial & post-industrial/the Internet era/age of AI actually turn out wonderful for us and rectify all its glaring flaws and harmful externalities.

>>22745563
he was always mainstream since he is not a serious intellectual, he's only relevant in pop culture

>>22746631
It is funny how basically nobody remembers him trying to bring down American Airlines 444, despite that originally being his claim to fame.

>>22745563
his hairline carries him. if he was bald no one would remember him. he did some edgy stupid shit that hurt some random people but he's simply an image that teens post on social media to signify that they're above their peers. it's kinda like a more watered down version of people wearing che guevara t shirts.

>>22746742
>Your arguments need to have a bunch of footnotes and peer review to be le serious
Brainlet take. First of all Kaczynski had a genius level iq, was an assistant professor in math at Berkley. Second, Nietzsche didn't write his best books under academic rulings and is taken very seriously in academia.
Also if you read the thread you'd see a recent academic paper taking him and his ideas seriously >>22745652
Lastly and most importantly, you should judge the, "intellectual seriousness" of a man based on his ideas and arguments to them. Him not being taken seriously in academia is not even relevant. Please explain your critique of him by bringing up his arguments and explain why they don't hold.

>>22746742
> since he is not a serious intellectual
I haven’t finished his “Anti-Tech Revolution” so far, but from what I’ve gotten through, it’s a very erudite work and very intelligently written, much more so than his ISaIF (which he explicitly made simple to make it more easily readable by the public). I suppose it’s from all the free time he had to read in prison. There’s countless citations to and references to as diverse fields as political science and political theorists, philosophy, history, literature, many of the hard sciences and mathematics, sociology, ecology, anthropology, and interdisciplinary fields like systems science. This man was devouring books while incarcerated, and it shows, as does his legendary 167 IQ in, yet never falling into deliberate obscurantism and purpleness-for-the-sake-of-purpleness or mystical waffling. The amount of serious thinkers he cites, his deep study of history, and the multiple fields he synthesizes together in this work is more than enough to classify him as a “serious thinker” IMHO.

>>22745635
>We are already seeing the rise of uncompromisingly anti-tech organizations
>Names three groups that take Kaczynski's ideas seriously but are either reformist or short-sighted
Wilderness Front is the only group in that list worth noting.

>>22746125
He was able to get the manifesto world-wide publication and publicity. That was always to purpose of the bombing campaign, and in that respect he succeeded enormously. If he started a blog or tried to publish it traditionally, first nobody would hear about it--it wouldn't be nearly as widely known as it is. And, most importantly, it would not be associated with the seriousness of the violence. Kaczynski WANTED to turn off people who would be offended by the violence, because they aren't intellginet enough or are too far absorbed by the values of the system to ver be effective revolutionaries. In every revolutionary movement, it's important to turn away undesirable people, and this is more so important in the context of an anti-tech revolution where the system simply coopts anything that could be a threat.

>>22746635
>He was able to get the manifesto world-wide publication and publicity. That was always to purpose of the bombing campaign, and in that respect he succeeded enormously. If he started a blog or tried to publish it traditionally, first nobody would hear about it--it wouldn't be nearly as widely known as it is. And, most importantly, it would not be associated with the seriousness of the violence. Kaczynski WANTED to turn off people who would be offended by the violence, because they aren't intellginet enough or are too far absorbed by the values of the system to ver be effective revolutionaries. In every revolutionary movement, it's important to turn away undesirable people, and this is more so important in the context of an anti-tech revolution where the system simply coopts anything that could be a threat.

>>22746655
>innocent people

Get F&%$ed. All of them were promoters of or defenders of technological progress.

>>22747020
this

>>22745563
I could've fixed him even tho I agree with him 100%

>>22745563
>safe edgy
>easy to read
>part of the pop culture

>>22748155
What a chad desu.

>>22746602
The irony that internet algorithyms promote his views via recommendations nowadays is absolutely hilarious

He was a dumb aspie who only impresses people who don't actually read nigga went nuts teaching mathematics lawl

>>22749001
Thinking Ted is a philosopher is the equivalent of saying you never read serious philosophy nor know much about the unabomber, him having a huge IQ doesnt mean shit and saying he was good at math doesnt matter for his philosophy since theyre different fields. People who study exacts often make for piss poor artists and intellectuals btw

He just had some common ground about technology and society as most people, but there is evidence from his diary and notes of him being a outright sociopath who wanted to kill people, his ideology is just a backdrop for that

>>22749015
all just name calling.

>>22749015
Yeah he's just a stupid so I don't know why people listen to anything he said

>>22749015
>IQ doesn't matter for philosophy!!
lmao @ that philosophy phd fastfood server cope

>>22745635
is it silly for religious people to not be on board with anti tech revolution because it involves killing

>>22745563
>Is he becoming more popular? Even mainstream?

4chan is not a microcosm, it's an outlier.

>>22749660
I disagree to an extent
4chan is the wellspring from which the future of cultural shifts descend
Happy Thanksgiving

Kinda of sucks that such basic ideas are tied to him. Hes not the only one who criticized technology

>>22749690
better than that faggot zerzan

>>22748118
>That was always to purpose of the bombing campaign
Source? I’ve seen it argued using his journals that the bombings were his lashing out at society, and he came up with the manifesto once he realized he had created a platform
The bombings weren’t activism, or meant to take down technology, just make him feel like he was getting revenge.

>>22745563
Liberal Jewess with vocal fray at my law school claims she's his biggest fan lol

>>22745563
I don't think so, although I could see some aspects of his professed ideas gaining credence. Namely that Darwinian and Malthusian pressures on societies make it so that conscious and intelligent control of civilizatons' trajectories is not possible. He does not say it this way but this is to my reading the essential thrust of his ideas. If inhumanity gives a social system any amount of comparative advantage, it must be embraced or else one must be trampled by those who lack such scruples. This is why his solution was to neuter the Superorganism's capability as it cannot be amended, only crippled.

>>22751075
God what I wouldn’t give to pound some liberal jewess Ted fan
Everyone at the law school attached to my uni is insufferable socdems

>>22745563
David Pearce should be popular instead of Ted

>>22751060
It's literally stated in the manifesto that he committed the bombings to get published. Read it.

>>22746125
Dude, just stop. Violence is bad, all politics is corrupt, nothing ever changes. Live laugh love. If you want to changethe world, start with yourself. There are millions of people eating vegetarian right now, and they arent using it as an excuse to kill anybody. You seriously need to ascend your vibration.

>>22751393
Do you have a quote on hand? I don't have my copy of Tech Slavery with me and I don't have the time tonight to scroll through an online version
Without knowing exactly what you refer to, I would hazard that it undermines the claim that "Ted K conducted the bombing campaign for political reasons" when there is convincing evidence that Ted had long desired to harm people in his life for personal reasons (often very slim reasons) and professes in his journals to be conducting "revenge" because he felt "anger"

>>22745677
wait did he wright more than the mannifesto? I need to get reading.

>>22745563
Lol no

>>22745733
>>You can't write true thing unless you are the first person to every wright them true thing
>>Meh originality

>>22751631
Yes. Technological Slavery is a revised version of the manifesto, additional notes, as well as collected essays and correspondences he wrote from prison
Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How is a complete book discussing exactly what it says in the title.
And finally there are other letters and essays that might interest you, just search for them, you can find them in all sorts of places online

>>22745563
Wendigoon made a video completely destroying his "philosophy", so I think it's pretty much over for him to become mainstream now.

>>22751645
The algorithms put it in my path but I ignored it because it was something like a three hour video, is it worth watching?

>>22751645
>completely destroying his "philosophy"
Can you list some of his counterarguments? Would like to hear before sitting through a three and half hour long Youtube video

>>22745614
To be fair, the kind of person whos aware of and willing to read ISAIF is probably predisposed to agree with it.

>>22745576
Why would I care about this jew?

>>22745675
>Also he had fantasies about raping people just wanted to throw that out there
Every man is like this.

>>22749660
Its also a thing on TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, etc.

>>22751693
It's mostly killing is bad and if he cared about people he wouldn't have killed people therefore his argument for the improvement of society is insincere.

He's been mainstream, and especially so for at least a few years now. But only "mainstream" in the sense that people know his face and the first line of ISAIF, and his philosophies themselves have become more popular. It's not like most people have read his work, though.

>>22751778
That's idiotic. Kaczynski doesn't want to "improve" society but instead wants the technological system destroyed before it collapses on its own and takes the biosphere with it, destroying all life on Earth. He believes that the technological system subjugates wild nature and also leads to widespread human suffering (mainly psychological suffering, as humans are forced to serve as a cog in a large social machine), and that due to the nature of the technological system (constantly competing for power in the short term without regard for long-term consequences) its logical conclusion is biosphere collapse. He killed those that were perpetuating technological progress, and thus had a hand in further destroying nature and limiting the scope of human freedom, in order to get his manifesto widely published (and thus more likely to reach people that would form a group to actually end the technological system). Considering the existence of groups now that are organizing around his ideas, like Wilderness Front, he was successful.

None of this makes him insincere, that is such a retarded argument and does not actually address Kaczynski's philosophy in any meaningful way whatsoever.

>>22751825
I agree with you but the eceleb says that Ted only wanted to kill people and made up that entire philosophy to find a way to justify his killing of people.
He also claims most of it is only observations about the world and society and not something more academic.

>>22751836
>He also claims most of it is only observations about the world and society and not something more academic.
Oh and by the way this eceleb saying this is the same that did a five hour Blood Meridian video 99% plot summary.

>>22751778
>It's mostly killing is bad and if he cared about people he wouldn't have killed people
Absolute brainlet take

>>22751825
>He killed those that were perpetuating technological progress, and thus had a hand in further destroying nature and limiting the scope of human freedom
Holy Mother of cope. Why tedsisters still try to find moral justification to his actions? Just admit that he did it solely to get his manifesto published. This "they were cogs in the machine that were perpetuating the technological system is just mental gymnastics. By this logic you could justify killing any person participating in society to some extent.

>>22751880
Wendigoon goes further saying he killed for pleasure and used all that as an excuse. Brainlet take.

>>22751891
So you just gonna strawman some brainlet's take on my post instead of addressing anything I've said?

>>22751896
Why reply to a post about an eceleb opinion then get made people continue on the subject of the eceleb?

>>22751899
I replied to one particular argument in that post that doesn't make any sense.

>>22751896
Don't defend retarded ecelebs if you don't want to be equated with them.
Also calling the very person you're defending a strawman shows you aren't worth taking seriously.

>>22751907
I'm not defending anyone, are you retarded? I have no idea who are you talking about, I just saw that post I replied to, making an asinine argument, I didn't even read all the reply chain before it.

>>22751909
>I didn't even read all the reply chain before it.
So why should anyone put any effort into engaging in debate with you?

>>22751915
Same reason why would anyone put any effort into debating anybody on this board? Unless you implying I somehow pulled the argument anon was making out of the context, I see no reason why wouldn't anyone debate with me.

>>22751635
this. but the system is trying hard to memory hole all of them.

>>22751393
He should have been a better writer. Nothing in there needed to be published

>>22752327
false. there is no other summary of the anti-tech revolutionary position in a concise and easy to read form that is also comprehensive and intellectually rigorous.

>>22751778
This is a strawman argument. Ted explicitly says what he’s doing is not altruistic, at least not for human beings. He doesn’t “care about people” as much as he understands what’s good for them (on a macro scale, obviously being blown up is not good for individuals)
Ted was motivated by a contempt for the industrial system and a desire to save wild nature, not because he “cared about people.” Finally, I find the claims “he killed for pleasure” and “his manifesto is right” to be compatible. I would believe he was a smart serial killer who happened to use his killings to publish an invaluable work on anti-tech.

>>22752700
>Finally, I find the claims “he killed for pleasure” and “his manifesto is right” to be compatible.

Well, yeah, I mean this is obvious.

A soldier fighting in WWII for example could easily believe what he was fighting for was a good thing and at the same time took pleasure (revenge) in killing his enemies.

>>22752722
And yet some people say “he was just killing because he was psycho/tranny/mean!” and think the argument stops there.

>>22751778
so basic bitch glowie talking points got it

Land's counter argument makes a lot more sense

>>22754075
>Land's counter argument
Got a text?

>>22745563
He reads well but I like industrial revolution objects (mason jars and wood stoves).

>>22745563
Yes, but only because he's le funny anti technology man for kids on TikTok.

>>22754075
How did we go to 5 Land threads up at all time to no mention of him most days in just a couple of years