INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE

[Anonymous No.12415368]

is teddy k kino?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

[Anonymous No.12415446]

>>12415368
Just read it yesterday and it is a great, great essay. Extremely prescient. Holds up frighteningly well today. If I ever have to write a manifesto, I will try to base it off of this example.

[Anonymous No.12415765]

>>12415368
No one ever actually refutes it. They just attack Kaczynski because he killed people or his troubled past, which are irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.12415779]

Teddy is one of the most based people in all of human history.

[Anonymous No.12415780]

Ahem.

E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U LE L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U LE L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L E L L U L

[Anonymous No.12415820]

>>12415765
I agree with him but I find his idea of leftism as infantile and reductionist, when it represents 1) a small subset of brainlets and 2) also applies to a subset of who would be termed 'rightwing'.
I find myself more and more agreeing with anarcho-primitivists, but the movement should not be unilateral and would benefit from an eclectic variety of thinkers.

[Anonymous No.12415842]

>>12415765
The only part that’s hard to refute is the stuff nicked from Ellul, the rest is easy pickings.

[Anonymous No.12416098]

>>12415780
Ellul sucks.

[Anonymous No.12416122]

wow never seen this same exact thread before

[Anonymous No.12416164]

>>12415842
Go on.

[Anonymous No.12416176]

>>12415820
>it represents 1) a small subset of brainlets and >2) also applies to a subset of who would be termed 'rightwing'.

I don't think he would deny either of those things, as he is careful to point out that he only uses the term 'leftists' for lack of anything better.

[Anonymous No.12416192]

>>12415368
random question not worth making a thread about: is there /out/ literature chart?

[Anonymous No.12416205]

>>12416192
It would just be Walden and Ted K

[Anonymous No.12416223]

>>12416205
what about john muir?

[Anonymous No.12416230]

>>12416192
Right here in my hand.

[Anonymous No.12416259]

>>12416230
You got one with less Asian texts, no offense.

[Anonymous No.12416274]

>>12416259
It would just be Walden and Ted K

[Anonymous No.12416300]

>>12416176
>>12415820
He repeats multiple times that this is just a segment of what he terms the 'leftist' population .

[Anonymous No.12416383]

>>12415368
Uncle Ted is based

[Anonymous No.12416389]

>>12415368
Why do newdork crossboarders like this retarded terrorist so much? He's not even good.

[Anonymous No.12416435]

>>12416098
False

[Anonymous No.12417039]

>>12415765

[Anonymous No.12417073]

go back to /pol/ you fucking nutter

[Anonymous No.12417121]

>>12416205
And some Jack London.

[Anonymous No.12417136]

>>12417073
What is even /pol/ about Ted? Have you ever gone to /pol/? Do you just tell people to go there when you don't like them?

[Anonymous No.12417154]

>>12417136
>What is even /pol/ about Ted?
Not that anon. The parts that are easily co-opted by communists on here, I'm guessing.

[Anonymous No.12417658]

>>12415368
he literally killed people... don't joke about this shit

[Anonymous No.12417866]

>>12417658
where's the joke?

[Anonymous No.12417896]

>>12417658
wahh we can't discuss his writings because he did bad shit. Grow up

[Anonymous No.12417902]

>>12416389
It's a decently insightful work for someome whose formal training is in mathematics. Also it wasn't meant to be profound, just a public statement of his views.

[Anonymous No.12417918]

>>12415765
>No one ever actually refutes it.
No need, we refute it every time we poke fun at the Amish.

I mean, yeah, let's all revert to primitivism and just have all of mankind wait around to go extinct come the next cosmic golf ball or other global disaster. Surely there's no logical reason civilization has taken the form it has that'd make it impossible to enforce. Sounds grand!

On the other hand, we might actually last a bit longer without the potential for biological warfare and other WMD's - but it's still collective suicide in the long term.

[Anonymous No.12418615]

>but i am a cuck and he h*cking killed people!!

[Anonymous No.12418690]

>>12417073
leave 4chan you disgusting leftist imbecile

[Anonymous No.12418834]

Has anyone here read Ellul ?
If so, is it comprehensible to a layman like me ? ( brainlet)

[Anonymous No.12420211]

>>12418834
Ellul is absolutely garbage. Waste of time.

[Anonymous No.12420234]

>>12418834
Yes, start with Propaganda.

[Anonymous No.12420550]

>>12417154
Ted has a large far-right following actually.

[Anonymous No.12420829]

>>12420550
His following consists of contrarian 15 year old larpers who think they’re on some transcended shit after reading the first paragraph of his manifesto yet spend the majority of their time on cellphones anyway

[Anonymous No.12421030]

>Ted Kaczynski
http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/154963372/

[Anonymous No.12421214]

>>12418834
Ellul is fairly simple. Propaganda is an easier work than TTS, but you can read either. There is hardly any difficult terminology and Ellul explains everything very thoroughly.

>>12420211
>t. seething technician bugman

[Anonymous No.12421277]

>>12415820
He starts his manifesto with bashing lefties because he doesn't want them to read it. It's explained in the latter part. He doesn't believe that any left-wing person could be truly capable revolutionary because of their flawed mindset.

[Anonymous No.12421638]

>>12421277
I'm a lefty but it's really good thus far. Maybe primitivism is the solution for how meaningless everything feels nowadays.

[Anonymous No.12422098]

>>12420829
Projection? I suppose this makes sense but I can guaruntee most zoomers care not about anything he has to say. Perhaps the Communist Manifesto

[Anonymous No.12423379]

I've never understood the appeal of this.

I mean, sure, if we went to primitivism, you probably wouldn't live to see the end of the species that'd inevitably result, so what do you care? But, at the same time, you also wouldn't live long enough to see the "utopia" he's claiming would come out of primitivism. So it's of no help to you in your lifetime, and no help to the greater whole in the long run. Seems it's the worst of both worlds offering no upside, unless you're the sort of antinatalist that's just hoping for extinction.

Leave alone the fact that there's no way to implement it, and even if you did, no way to make sure we don't wind up right back where we are. I mean, nature, both internal and external, kinda pushed us to this point, and, barring extinction event, there's nothing to prevent it simply doing so again.

Not that there aren't all sorts of things you can complain about in modern civilization, but winding back the clock doesn't seem to me to be a real solution.

[Anonymous No.12423390]

>>12417658
huhuhuhuhhuu
goggogogogogo
backbackbackbackbackback
tototototototo

[Anonymous No.12423840]

>>12415368

He is.

[Anonymous No.12423912]

>>12422098
I'm pretty sure his following, at least rightist, is largely zoomers.

[Anonymous No.12423925]

>>12423379
It's leftist utopians that think it would be a (socially) liberal paradise where all problems are solved, muh egalitarianism. I don't think Ted agrees, he explicitly disagrees actually. Personally, I just think it fits human biology, simply what we are best suited to in all respects that I can think of. We're all mentally ill and delusional in the present-day, we will only become more as we degrade as a species.

[Anonymous No.12423933]

>>12417918
nothing wrong with the Amish, they live peaceful lives and don't bother anyone else

[Anonymous No.12423984]

>>12423933
While some folks who live near them would disagree - benign or not, there's the fatal flaw that they only survive by our civilization's good graces.

>>12423925
So, give up and wait to die? Crawl back up into the trees and resume throwing feces at one another, because that's what our biology is good at?

Seems, if anything, our biology demands what it does of nearly all species - spread and survival. That being why we have civilization and are probing the edges of space, rather than still hiding in caves.

I suppose one can make the argument, however flawed it would be, that individual cavemen were somehow better than modern men... But were they collectively? If they were, surely we'd still be them, and not have this Internet thing to have this discussion on.

[Anonymous No.12424017]

>>12415820
>Anarcho-primitivism
Is that really as stupid as it sounds? Basically, "let's go back to the closed society?"

[Anonymous No.12424036]

>>12423379
Not too mention that even if a society could successfully adopt a neo-primitive society, there's no way in hell all the other countries in the world would also do so simultaneously. Reducing your effective military deterrence to 0 means you'll be annexed by the first neighboring country or even corporation that feels like helping themselves to your resources

[Anonymous No.12424053]

>>12423840
Where's the source on this?

[Anonymous No.12424452]

>>12423840
>ted fell for the peterson memes
not surprising considering he thinks men and women should be equal and refused to read anything on hitler or the nazis to support his arguments on how to reorganize a society in anti-tech revolution.

[Anonymous No.12424464]

>>12424017
Ted isn't an anarcho primitivist and spends large portions on his work shitting on them for their delusional libtard beliefs about primitivism and anarchy. it's no wonder the liberal anon finds himself sympathetic to anarcho-primitivists.

[Anonymous No.12424483]

>>12424036
it's not voluntary. A primitive society will only come about by necessity after a collapse of technological society. Ted explains how this isn't as difficult as it sounds and why another technological society will never start again once the first collapses.

It's also pretty certain that "primitive" society is going to be some middle ground between modern life and the iron age. We won't be going back to pre-agriculture.

[Anonymous No.12424880]

Pynchon's better, he should've been the unibomber

[Anonymous No.12424905]

>>12423840
how can i send him an email? i want to talk to him

[Anonymous No.12424920]

>>12415780
Mumford is superior to both. Fight me.

[Anonymous No.12425136]

>>12423933
>nothing wrong with the Amish
Besides the fact that they have to make up bullshit rules to sustain their ignorant lifestyles as best they can. For example, they allow themselves limited usage of electricity.

[Anonymous No.12425169]

>>12424905
>sending an email to an anti-tech luddite

heh

[Anonymous No.12425172]

>>12424905
Not sure about email. You can send him a letter.

[Anonymous No.12425198]

>>12425172
address?

[Anonymous No.12425213]

>>12417658
Holy fuck, you can't believe how much I'd pay for uncle ted to send me a package, I would literally spend an entire years salary just for one of uncle teddy's THICK SLICK AND SICK wooden boxes, you fucking DENSE RETARD, please fucking shoot yourself.

[Anonymous No.12425224]

>>12420829
This is literally me but I'm 18, still great though, don't open any boxes in the coming weeks btw.

[Anonymous No.12425239]

>>12424452
????? Just discipline yourself, you fat fuck, he didn't even mention peterson.

[Anonymous No.12425258]

>>12425198
Yeah, I am not googling that shit from work.

[Anonymous No.12425265]

>>12425258
tell your boss to fuck off

[Anonymous No.12425283]

>>12415368
I love Teddy so much. I would marry him if I could

[Anonymous No.12425316]

>>12425224
Me too and I'm 19

[Anonymous No.12425327]

>>12425316
Here's a tip: read Pynchon instead

[Anonymous No.12425337]

>>12425327
Hmm I'll probably add the rocket cocks to my stack

[Anonymous No.12425357]

>>12415765
>They just attack Kaczynski because he killed people or his troubled past
Literally a point he makes.

[Anonymous No.12425364]

>>12425357
>i keel pepl bcuz i smarty

lol

[Anonymous No.12426234]

>>12425239
> he didn't even mention peterson.
0 IQ

[Anonymous No.12426265]

>>12417918
>thinks mankind more likely to go extinct by being primitive than being technological
The absolute retardation of techies.
>Surely there's no logical reason civilization has taken the form it has that'd make it impossible to enforce
He's not arguing for a voluntary return. Self-propagating systems.

[Anonymous No.12426470]

>>12426265
>Self-propagating systems
>muh emergence muh autopoiesis muh fractals
Worst meme of the last 70 years, the latest "X of the gaps" heralded as a replacement for God

[Anonymous No.12426722]

>>12415765
He argue against the inevitable

Its a fallacy

[Anonymous No.12427126]

>>12426265
>thinks mankind more likely to go extinct by being primitive than being technological
>The absolute retardation of techies.
But extinction is inevitable. There's 50,000 things that could wipe out this biosphere, many with no warning at all, and even if none of those happen, in less than a billion years, that sun is going to turn all those oceans into clouds.

Primitivism, even if one could accomplish it, is self genocide, not only for us, but for all life on the planet. Don't really have time enough left here to evolve another species enough to both be aware of the problem, and have the potential to do anything about it.

And the most self-propagating system around, is the one that we're in, hence, well, why we're in it.

[Anonymous No.12427225]

>>12427126
Stop being a pseud and actually read anti-tech revolution. Why you midwits always try to refute things when it's dubious if you even have an understanding of your own side of the argument is beyond me.
> the most self-propagating system around, is the one that we're in
You don't know what a self propagating system is. Which is appealing because it's self-explanatory. We aren't "in" any single one.

Enjoy your sophomoric star trek fantasies.

[Anonymous No.12427292]

>>12415368
Fantastic work.
Practices what he preaches.
Smart guy.
Good ideology.
Not a pretentious, self-serving cunt who just writes complex philosophy without logic to tingle his little cock like most (obviously because hes a mathematician, not some fraud social "scientist"/artist)

It's such a hard truth to swallow that all the technological advancement that is inevitably progressing is also what is going to destroy humanity. Anybody who places any spiritual/intrinsic value in humans should see that science and technology has a track record of reducing things we value spiritually down to objects to be analysed. The exact same thing has happened and will happen to people and its causing such massive nihilistic/existentialist dread in educated populations. Evolution was so controversial for this very reason - it takes a massive leap forward towards viewing people as any other animal, a proposition most people subconsciously reject today despite all evidence.

I dont think teddy viewed his beliefs in this way but that's what I think is truly at play here. Industrialisation of society exacerbates this fundamental issue. The further we stay from nature, the worse life becomes and it can only result in absolute destruction.

[Anonymous No.12427330]

>>12427292
except Pynchon's better in literally every way.

[Anonymous No.12427342]

>>12427330
How many people did he kill?

[Anonymous No.12427351]

>>12427342
exactly

[Anonymous No.12427364]

>>12427351
Exactly.

[Anonymous No.12427380]

>>12427364
>he actually killed people bruh who cares if his writing isn't as fully formed who even cares about something like that on this the literature board

lol some people

[Anonymous No.12427402]

>>12427380
Action>contemplation

[Anonymous No.12427407]

>>12427292
It saddens me that for us to progress, nature has to be sacrificed. Humanity is complete garbage unworthy of nature's beauty, and it sadden me that in the far future we might abandon this marvelous planet for dome on ugly planet.

[Anonymous No.12427443]

>>12427407
We aren't ever leaving this planet. It will never be plausible within a timeframe where it's strategically and economically viable. AKA in the very short term relative to shit hitting the fan.

[Anonymous No.12427695]

>>12415820
Think progressivist. Many right-wing people are also progressive, just in a vastly different ways.

[Anonymous No.12427745]

>>12415368
The thing that scares me most about this book is the bended assumptions kazynski himself didn't believe. Someone as smart of him would've bent the truth to make it seem like the system "is just about to go through a period of extreme duress, and if it gets through that point then it will be exponentially harder to stop", to make people feel more motivated to act by selling a type of "limited time offer to avoid destruction". Kazynski probably came to the conclusion long ago that it can't be stopped, and did the things he did as a pathetic (he knew it was hopeless) last effort to stop the techno-industrial system.

[Anonymous No.12427794]

>>12427745
Kaczynski doesn't think it's that hard to end technological society. It's so interconnected and dependent that taking out a major electrical grid for a few months alone could make things unrecoverable.It is funny how how he emphasizes working within they system aka not doing any criminal activity though, hard to tell if it's genuine regret or just because he has to get past prison censors.

There is reason to believe his bombing were due to personal vendettas of his favourite spots getting bulldozed and getting the word out was secondary.

[Anonymous No.12427937]

>>12427292
There are plenty of people who find spiritual fulfillment even amidst all the post-industrial technology. But you probably call them all bugmen on sight and don't bother exploring further to find the ones who are more than just sheep, and actually possess integrity and strong values.

[Anonymous No.12429107]

>>12427794
While it is harder to build things than it is to break them, ya wouldn't be starting from scratch. And breaking all the infrastructure available to rebuild civilization would be devastatingly hard, short of a population loss of 90% or so (or a very strategic population loss of a quarter of that - Cambodia style - kill all the educated folks).

Though I still need to do more than skim the bits on how he intends to prevent modern civilization from happening again. Curious about that.

(Also a bit terrified, as yes, that would eventually just be the end of mankind. Pyschos gonna psycho though.)

[Anonymous No.12429133]

>>12427225
Don't even have to worry about "sophomoric star trek fantasies" (though, yes, eventually that's do or die). Without the industrial base, mankind gets wiped out by simple climate shifts (as nearly happened during the genetic bottleneck). I suspect, however, practicality and survival would win out over blind idealism at some point, as it usually does.